Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/fallaciesofproteOObastrich 


FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 


Fallacies  of  Protection 


BEING    THE 


SOPHISMES  ECONOMIQUES 


OF 


FREDERIC  BASTIAT 


TRANSLATED    FROM    THE    FIFTH    EDITION    OF    THE    FRENCH 

BY 

PATRICK  JAMES   STIRLING,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.E. 

Author  of  "The  Philosophy  of  Trade,'*  etc. 


WITH 

AN    INTRODUCTORY    NOTE 

BY 

THE    RIGHT   HON.    H.    H.    ASQUITH.    M.P. 


NEW    YORK 

G.    P.    PUTNAM'S     SONS 

27  AND  29  West  230  St. 

MCMIX 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTE 

I  AM  very  glad  that  the  Cobden  Club  is  reissuing,  in 
a  popular  shape,  an  English  translation  of  Bastiat's 
Sophismes  Economiques,  The  cardinal  doctrines  of  Free 
Trade  have  never  been  more  cogently  presented  or  more 
brilliantly  illustrated.  The  Sophisms,  which  Bastiat  so 
ruthlessly  exposed,  will  always  have  a  certain  vogue  so 
long  as  there  are  people  who  think  confusedly.  It  is  the 
fashion  in  some  quarters  now-a-days — a  very  convenient 
fashion — to  treat  the  economics  of  the  Cobdenite  era  as 
obsolete.  There  is  no  writer  or  thinker  of  that  time 
whose  reasoning  and  conclusions  are  less  dependent  upon 
local  and  transient  conditions  than  are  those  of  Bastiat. 
The  Economic  Sophisms  are  no  more  out  of  date  than 
the  Wealth  of  Nations, 

H.  H.  ASQUITH. 
Mayff  1909. 


335052 


The  opening  paragraphs  of  Chapter  XII.  and  the  con- 
cluding chapter  of  the  first  series  of  the  Sophisms y  and 
Chapters  I.,  II.,  XL,  and  XII.  of  the  second  series,  not 
being  directly  relevant  to  the  subject  of  Protection,  hare 
not  been  included  in  this  reprint  of  Dr.  Stirling's  trans- 
lation of  the  Sophistries  Economiques. 

A  few  slight  alterations  have  been  made;  and  the 
notes  in  square  brackets  have  been  added.  The  remain- 
ing notes,  except  where  otherwise  stated,  are  those  of 
the  author. 


CONTENTS 

FIRST    SERIES 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Introduction I 

I.  Abundance — Scarcity  ......  5 

II.  Obstacle — Cause  .......  16 

III.  Effort — Result 20 

IV.  To  Equalise  the  Conditions  of  Production        .  29 
V.  Our  Products  are  Burdened  with  Taxes  .         .  48 

VI.  Balance  of  Trade        ......  55 

VII.  Petition  of  the  Manufacturers  of  Candles,  Wax- 
lights,    Lamps,    Candlesticks,    Street    Lamps, 
Snuffers,    Extinguishers,    and    of   the    Pro- 
ducers OF  Oil,  Tallow,  Resin,  Alcohol,  and, 
generally,    of    everything    connected    with 

Lighting           .......  60 

VIII.  Differential  Duties    ......  66 

IX.  Immense  Discovery       ......  68 

X.  Reciprocity           .......  72 

XL  Nominal  Prices    .......  76 

XII.  Does  Protection  Raise  the  Rate  of  Wages  ?     .  81 

XIII.  Theory — Practice 85 

XIV.  Conflict  of  Principles         .         .    •      .         .         .92 

XV.  Reciprocity  Again 96 

XVI.  Obstructed   Navigation  Pleading  for  the   Pro- 
hibitionists     .......  99 

XVII.  A  Negative  Railway   ......  loi 

XVIII.  There  are  No  Absolute  Principles     .         .         .  103 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XIX.  National  Independence I07 

XX.  Human  Labour — National  Labour       .         .         .  no 

XXI.  Raw  Materials 116 

XXII.  Metaphors 127 


SECOND    SERIES 

I.  The  Two  Hatchets 132 

II.  Lower  Council  of  Labour  .....  136 

III.  Dearness — Cheapness 140 

IV.  To  Artisans  and  Workmen           .         .         .         .151 
V.  A  Chinese  Story           ......  161 

VI.  Post  Hoc,  Ergo  Propter  Hoc      ....  166 

VII.  The  Premium  Theft 169 

VIII.  The  Taxgatherer 178 

IX.  Protection  ;   or,  The  Three  City  Aldermen         .  185 

X.  Something  Else    .......  198 

XI.  The  Little  Arsenal  of  the  Free-Trader   .         .  209 

XII.  The  Right  Hand  and  the  Left  ....  216 

XIII.  Domination  by  Labour         .....  224 


FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

(Sophismes  Economiques) 
FIRST  SERIES  ' 

INTRODUCTION 

My  design  in  this  little  volume  is  to  refute  some  of  the 
arguments  which  are  urged  against  the  Freedom  of  Trade. 

I  do  not  propose  to  engage  in  a  contest  with  the  protec- 
tionists; but  rather  to  instil  a  principle  into  the  minds  of 
those  who  hesitate  because  they  sincerely  doubt. 

I  am  not  one  of  those  who  say  that  Protection  is  founded 
on  men's  interests.  I  am  of  opinion  rather  that  it  is 
founded  on  errors,  or,  if  you  will,  upon  incomplete  truths. 
Too  many  people  fear  liberty,  to  permit  us  to  conclude 
that  their  apprehensions  are  not  sincerely  felt. 

It  is  perhaps  aiming  too  high,  but  my  wish  is,  I  confess, 
that  this  little  work  should  become,  as  it  were,  the  Manual 
of  those  whose  business  it  is  to  pronounce  between  the 
two  principles.  Where  men  have  not  been  long  accus- 
tomed and  familiarised  to  the  doctrine  of  liberty,  the 
fallacies  of  protection,  in  one  shape  or  another,  are  con- 
stantly coming  back  upon  them.  In  order  to  disabuse 
them  of  such  errors  when  they  recur,  a  long  process  of 
analysis  becomes  necessary ;  and  everyone  has  not  the  time 
required  for  such  a  process — legislators  less  than  others- 
This  is  my  reason  for  endeavouring  to  present  the  analysis 
and  its  results  cut  and  dry. 

*  The  first  series  of  the  Sophismes  Economiques  appeared  in  the  end 
pi  1845;  the  second  series  in  1848.— French  Editor, 
B 


2  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

\Rvtt:it  may  be  asked:  Are  the  benefits  of  liberty  so 
hidden  as  •  to"  be  discovered  only  by  Economists  by  pro- 
fession ? 

We  must  confess  that  our  adversaries  have  a  marked 
advantage  over  us  in  the  discussion.  In  very  few  words 
they  can  announce  a  half-truth ;  and  in  order  to  demon- 
strate that  it  is  incomplete,  we  are  obliged  to  have  recourse 
to  long  and  dry  dissertations. 

This  arises  from  the  nature  of  things.  Protection  con- 
centrates on  one  point  the  good  which  it  produces,  while 
the  evils  which  it  inflicts  are  spread  over  the  masses.  The 
one  is  visible  to  the  naked  eye ;  the  other  only  to  the  eye 
of  the  mind.*     In  the  case  of  liberty,  it  is  just  the  reverse. 

In  the  treatment  of  almost  all  economic  questions  we 
find  it  to  be  so. 

You  say :  Here  is  a  machine  which  has  turned  thirty 
workmen  into  the  street. 

Or  :  Here  is  a  spendthrift  who  encourages  every  branch 
of  industry. 

Or :  The  conquest  of  Algeria  has  doubled  the  trade  of 
Marseilles. 

Or :  The  budget  secures  subsistence  for  a  hundred 
thousand  families. 

You  are  understood  at  once  and  by  all.  Your  pro- 
positions are  in  themselves  clear,  simple,  and  true.  What 
are  your  deductions  from  them  ? 

Machinery  is  an  evil. 

Luxury,  conquests,  and  heavy  taxation  are  productive 
of  good. 

And  your  theory  has  all  the  more  success  that  you  are 
in  a  situation  to  support  it  by  a  reference  to  undoubted 
facts. 

On  our  side,  we  must  decline  to  confine  our  attention 

See  also  Bastiat's  Wha^  is  seen  and  what  is  not  seen,  written  in 
1850.  Collected  V^orks,  vol.  v.,  p.  336,  French  edition.  [A  translation 
has  been  published  by  the  Cobden  Club.] 


INTRODUCTION  3 

to  the  cause,  and  its  direct  and  immediate  effect.  We 
know  that  this  very  effect  in  its  turn  becomes  a  cause.  To 
judge  correctly  of  a  measure,  then,  we  must  trace  it  through 
the  whole  chain  of  effects  to  its  final  result.  In  other 
words,  we  are  forced  to  reason  upon  it.  ,^ 

But  then  clamour  gets  up  :  You  are  theorists,  meta- 
physicians, idealists,  Utopian  dreamers,  doctrinaries ;  and 
all  the  prejudices  of  the  popular  mind  are  roused  against 
us. 

What,  under  such  circumstances,  are  we  to  do?  We 
can  only  invoke  the  patience  and  good  sense  of  the  reader, 
and  set  our  deductions,  if  we  can,  in  a  light  so  clear  that 
truth  and  error  must  show  themselves  plainly,  openly,  and 
without  disguise;  and  that  the  victory,  once  gained,  may 
remain  on  the  side  of  restriction  or  on  that  of  freedom. 

And  here  I  must  set  down  an  essential  observation. 

Some  extracts  from  this  little  volume  have  already 
appeared  in  the  Journal  des  Economistes. 

In  a  criticism,  in  other  respects  very  favourable,  from 
the  pen  of  M.  le  Vicomte  de  Romanet,  he  supposes  that  I 
demand  the  suppression  of  customs.  He  is  mistaken.  I 
demand  the  suppression  of  the  protectionist  system.  .  We 
don't  refuse  taxes  to  the  Government,  but  we  desire,  if 
possible,  to  dissuade  the  governed  from  taxing  one  another. 
Napoleon  said  that  "the  custom-house  should  not  be  made 
an  instrument  of  revenue,  but  a  means  of  protecting  in- 
dustry." We  maintain  the  contrary,  and  we  contend  that 
the  custom-house  ought  not  to  become  in  the  hands  of 
the  working  classes  an  instrument  of  reciprocal  rapine,  but 
that  it  may  be  used  as  an  instrument  of  revenue  as  legiti- 
mately as  any  other.  So  far  are  we — or,  to  speak  only  for 
myself,  so  far  am  I — from  demanding  the  suppression  of 
customs,  that  I  see  in  that  branch  of  revenue  our  future 
anchor  of  safety.  I  believe  our  resources  are  capable  of 
yielding  to  the  Treasury  immense  returns;  and,  to  speak 


4  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

plainly,  I  must  add  that,  seeing  how  slow  is  the  spread  of 
sound  economic  doctrines,  and  so  rapid  the  increase  of 
our  budgets,  I  am  disposed  to  count  more  upon  the 
necessities  of  the  Treasury  than  on  the  force  of  enlightened 
opinion  for  furthering  the  cause  of  commercial  reform. 
^kI  You  ask  me,  then  :  What  is  your  conclusion  ?  And  I 
reply,  that  here  there  is  no  need  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion. 
I  combat  fallacies;  that  is  all. 

But  you  rejoin,  that  it  is  not  enough  to  pull  down — it  is 
also  necessary  to  build  up.  True;  but  to  destroy  an  error 
is  to  build  up  the  truth  which  stands  opposed  to  it. 

After  all,  I  have  no  repugnance  to  declare  what  my 
wishes  are.  I  desire  to  see  public  opinion  led  to  sanction 
a  law  of  customs  conceived  nearly  in  these  terms:  — 

Articles  of  primary  necessity  to  pay  a  duty,  ad  valorem, 
of  5  per  cent. 

Articles  of  convenience,   lo  per  cent. 

Articles  of  luxury,   15  to  20  per  cent. 

These  distinctions,  I  am  aware,  belong  to  an  order  of 
ideas  which  are  quite  foreign  to  Political  Economy  strictly 
so  called,  and  I  am  far  from  thinking  them  as  just  and 
useful  as  they  are  commonly  supposed  to  be.  But  this 
subject  does  not  fall  within  the  compass  of  my  present 
design.^ 

[1  Bastiat  suggests  a  scheme  of  customs  duties  which  would  have  been 
aa  immense  improvement  on  the  fiscal  system  then  (1845)  existing  in 
France,  but  which  would  have  been  difficult  to  carry  out  in  practice.] 


CHAPTER    I 

ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY 

Which   is  best  for  man  and  for  society,   abundance  or 
scarcity  ? 

What !  you  exclaim,  can  that  be  a  question  ?  Has  any- 
one ever  asserted,  or  is  it  possible  to  maintain,  that  scarcity 
is  at  the  foundation  of  human  wellbeing? 

Yes,  this  has  been  asserted,  and  is  maintained  every 
day ;  and  I  hesitate  not  to  affirm  that  the  theory  of  scarcity 
is  much  the  most  popular.  It  is  the  life  of  conversation, 
of  the  newspapers,  of  books,  and  of  political  oratory; 
and,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  certain  that  Political 
Economy  will  have  fulfilled  its  practical  mission  when  it 
has  established  beyond  question,  and  widely  disseminated, 
this  very  simple  proposition  :  *'  The  wealth  of  men  consists 
in  the  abundance  of  commodities." 

Do  we  not  hear  it  said  every  day:  "The  foreigner  is 
about  to  inundate  us  with  his  products?"  Then  we  fear 
abundance. 

Did  not  M.  Saint-Cricq  exclaim:  ''Production  is  ex- 
cessive ?  "     Then  he  feared  abundance. 

Do  workmen  break  machines  ?  Then  they  fear  excess 
of  production,  or  abundance. 

Has  not  M.  Bugeaud  pronounced  these  words:  "Let 
bread  be  dear,  and  agriculturists  will  get  rich  "  ?  Now, 
bread  can  only  be  dear  because  it  is  scarce.  Therefore 
M.  Bugeaud  extols  scarcity. 

Does  not  M.  d'Argout  urge  as  an  argument  against 
sugar-growing  the  very  productiveness  of  that  industry  ? 
Does  he  not  say  :  "  Beetroot  has  no  future,  and  its  culture 

5 


6  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

cannot  be  extended,  because  a  few  acres  devoted  to  its 
culture  in  each  department  would  supply  the  whole 
consumption  of  France?"  Then,  in  his  eyes,  good 
lies  in  sterility,  in  dearth,  and  evil  in  fertility  and 
abundance. 

La  Presse,  Le  Commerce,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
daily  papers,  have  one  or  more  articles  every  morning 
to  demonstrate  to  the  Legislative  Chamber  and  the  Govern- 
ment that  it  is  sound  policy  to  raise  legislatively  the 
price  of  all  things  by  means  of  tariffs.  And  do  the 
Chamber  and  the  Government  not  obey  the  injunction  ? 
Now  tariffs  can  raise  prices  only  by  diminishing  the  supply 
of  commodities  in  the  market !  Then  the  journals,  the 
Chamber,  and  the  Minister  put  in  practice  the  theory  of 
scarcity,  and  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  this  theory  is 
by  far  the  most  popular. 

How  does  it  happen  that  in  the  eyes  of  workmen,  of 
publicists,  and  statesmen  abundance  should  appear  a  thing 
to  be  dreaded  and  scarcity  advantageous  ?  I  propose  to 
trace  this  illusion  to  its  source. 

We  remark  that  a  man  grows  richer  in  proportion  to 
the  return  yielded  by  his  exertions,  that  is  to  say,  in  pro- 
portion as  he  sells  his  commodity  at  a  higher  price.  He 
sells  at  a  higher  price  in  proportion  to  the  rarity,  to  the 
scarcity,  of  the  article  he  produces.  We  conclude  from 
this  that,  as  far  as  he  is  concerned  at  least,  scarcity  enriches 
him.  Applying  successively  the  same  reasoning  to  all 
other  producers,  we  construct  the  theory  of  scarcity.  We 
next  proceed  to  apply  this  theory,  and,  in  order  to  favour 
producers  generally,  we  raise  prices  artificially,  and  cause 
a  scarcity  of  all  commodities,  by  prohibition,  by  restriction, 
by  the  suppression  of  machinery,  and  other  analogous 
means. 

The  same  thing  holds  of  abundance.  We  observe  that 
when  a  product  is  plentiful,  it  sells  at  a  lower  price,  and 


ABUNDANCE— SCARCITY  7 

the  producer  gains  less.  If  all  producers  are  in  the  same 
situation,  they  are  all  poor.  Therefore  it  is  abundance 
that  ruins  society.  And  as  theories  are  soon  reduced  to 
practice,  we  see  the  law  struggling  against  the  abundance 
of  commodities. 

This  fallacy  in  its  more  general  form  may  make  little 
impression,  but  applied  to  a  particular  order  of  facts, 
to  a  certain  branch  of  industry,  to  a  given  class  of  pro- 
ducers, it  is  extremely  specious;  and  this  is  easily  explained. 
It  forms  a  syllogism  which  is  not  false,  but  incomplete. 
Now,  what  is  true  in  a  syllogism  is  always  and  necessarily 
present  to  the  mind.  But  incompleteness  is  a  negative 
quality,  an  absent  datum,  which  it  is  very  possible,  and 
indeed  very  easy,  to  leave  out  of  account. 

Man  produces  in  order  to  consume.  He  is  at  once 
producer  and  consumer.  The  reasoning  which  I  have  just 
explained  considers  him  only  in  the  first  of  these  points 
of  view.  Had  the  second  been  taken  into  account,  it  would 
have  led  to  an  opposite  conclusion.  In  effect,  may  it  not 
be  said : 

The  consumer  is  richer  in  proportion  as  he  purchases 
all  things  cheaper;  and  he  purchases  things  cheaper  in 
proportion  to  their  abundance;  therefore  it  is  abundance 
which  enriches  him.  This  reasoning,  extended  to  all  con- 
sumers, leads  to  the  theory  of  plenty. 

It  is  the  notion  of  exchange  imperfectly  understood 
which  leads  to  these  illusions.  If  we  consider  our  personal 
interest,  we  recognise  distinctly  that  it  is  double.  As 
sellers  we  have  an  interest  in  dearness,  and  consequently 
in  scarcity' ;  as  buyers,  in  cheapness,  or  what  amounts  to 
the  same  thing,  in  the  abundance  of  commodities.  We 
cannot,  then,  found  our  reasoning  on  one  or  other  of  these 
interests  before  inquiring  which  of  the  two  coincides  and 

[^  Bastiat  here  means  scarcity  of  supply    outside  of  the  seller's  own 
business   which  would   allow  him  to  fix  his  own  price.] 


8  FALLACIES  bF   PROTECTION 

is  identified  with  the  general  and  permanent  interest  of 
mankind  at  large. 

If  man  were  a  solitary  animal,  if  he  laboured  exclusively 
for  himself,  if  he  consumed  directly  the  fruit  of  his  labour 
—in  a  word,  if  he  did  not  exchange— the  theory  of  scarcity 
would  never  have  appeared  in  the  world.  It  is  too  evident 
that,  in  that  case,  abundance  would  be  advantageous,  from 
whatever  quarter  it  came,  whether  from  the  result  of  his 
industry,  from  ingenious  tools,  from  powerful  machinery 
of  his  invention,  or  whether  due  to  the  fertility  of  the 
soil,  the  liberality  of  nature,  or  even  to  a  mysterious 
invasion  of  products  brought  by  the  waves  and  left  by 
them  upon  the  shore.  No  solitary  man  would  ever  have 
thought  that  in  order  to  encourage  his  labour  and  render 
it  more  productive,  it  was  necessary  to  break  in  pieces 
the  instruments  which  saved  it,  to  neutralize  the  fertility 
of  the  soil,  or  give  back  to  the  sea  the  good  things  it 
had  brought  to  his  door.  He  would  perceive  at  once  that 
labour  is  not  an  end,  but  a  means;  and  that  it  would  be 
absurd  to  reject  the  result  for  fear  of  doing  injury  to  the 
means  by  which  that  result  was  accomplished.  He  would 
perceive  that  if  he  devotes  two  hours  a  day  to  providing 
for  his  wants,  any  circumstance  (machinery,  fertility, 
gratuitous  gift,  no  matter  what)  which  saves  him  an  hour 
of  that  labour,  the  result  remaining  the  same,  puts  that 
hour  at  his  disposal,  and  that  he  can  devote  it  to  increasing 
his  enjoyments ;  in  short,  he  would  see  that  to  save  labour 
is  nothing  else  than  progress. 

But  exchange  disturbs  our  view  of  a  truth  so  simple. 
In  the  social  state,  and  with  the  separation  of  employments 
to  which  it  leads,  the  production  and  consumption  of  a 
commodity  are  not  mixed  up  and  confounded  in  the  same 
individual.  Each  man  comes  to  see  in  his  labour  no 
longer  a  means  but  an  end.  In  relation  to  each  com- 
modity, exchange  creates  two  interests,   that  of  the  pro- 


ABUNDANCE— SCARCITY  9 

ducer  and  that  of  the  consumer;  and  these  two  interests 
are  always  directly  opposed  to  each  other. 

It  is  essential  to  analyse  them,  and  examine  their 
nature. 

Take  the  case  of  any  producer  whatever,  what  is  his 
immediate  interest  ?  It  consists  of  two  things  :  first,  that 
the  fewest  possible  number  of  persons  should  devote  them- 
selves to  his  branch  of  industry ;  secondly,  that  the  greatest 
possible  number  of  persons  should  be  in  quest  of  the  article 
he  produces.  Political  economy  explains  it  more  suc- 
cinctly in  these  terms  :  Supply  very  limited,  demand  very 
extended;  or,  in  other  words  still.  Competition  limited, 
demand  unlimited. 

What  is  the  immediate  interest  of  the  consumer  ?  That 
the  supply  of  the  product  in  question  should  be  extended, 
and  the  demand  restrained. 

Seeing,  then,  that  these  two  interests  are  in  opposition 
to  each  other,  one  of  them  must  necessarily  coincide  with 
social  interests  in  general,  and  the  other  be  antagonistic 
to  them. 

But  which  of  them  should  legislation  favour,  as 
identical  with  the  public  good — if,  indeed,  it  should  favour 
either  ? 

To  discover  this,  we  must  inquire  what  would  happen 
if  the  secret  wishes  of  men  were  granted. 

In  as  far  as  we  are  producers,  it  must  be  allowed  that 
the  desire  of  every  one  of  us  is  anti-social.  Are  we  vine- 
dressers ?  It  would  give  us  no  great  regret  if  hail  should 
shower  down  on  all  the  vines  in  the  world  except  our  own  : 
this  is  the  theory  of  scarcity.  Are  we  iron-masters?  Our 
wish  is  that  there  should  be  no  other  iron  in  the  market 
but  our  own,  however  much  the  public  may  be  in  want  of 
it;  and  for  no  other  reason  than  that  this  want,  keenly 
felt  and  imperfecdy  satisfied,  shall  ensure  us  a  higher 
price  :  this  is  still  the  theory  of  scarcity.     Are  we  farmers  ^ 


lo  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

We  say  with  M.  Bugeaud  :  Let  bread  be  dear,  that  is  to 
say,  scarce,  and  agriculturists  will  thrive :  always  the 
same  theory,  the  theory  of  scarcity. 

Are  we  physicians?  We  cannot  avoid  seeing  that 
certain  physical  ameliorations,  improving  the  sanitary 
state  of  the  country,  the  development  of  certain  moral 
virtues,  such  as  moderation  and  temperance,  the  progress 
of  knowledge  tending  to  enable  each  man  to  take  better 
care  of  his  own  health,  the  discovery  of  certain  simple 
remedies  of  easy  application,  would  be  so  many  blows  to 
our  professional  success.  In  as  far  as  we  are  physicians, 
then,  our  secret  wishes  would  be  anti-social.  I  do  not 
say  that  physicians  form  these  secret  wishes.  On  the 
contrary,  I  believe  they  would  hail  with  joy  the  dis- 
covery of  a  universal  panacea;  but  they  would  not  do 
this  as  physicians,  but  as  men  and  as  Christians.  By 
a  noble  abnegation  of  self,  the  physician  places  himself 
in  the  consumer's  point  of  view.  But  as  exercising  a 
profession,  from  which  he  derives  his  own  and  his  family's 
subsistence,  his  desires,  or,  if  you  will,  his  interests,  are 
anti-social. 

Are  we  manufacturers  of  cotton  stuffs?  We  desire 
to  sell  them  at  the  price  most  profitable  to  ourselves. 
We  should  consent  willingly  to  an  interdict  being  laid 
on  all  rival  manufactures ;  and  if  we  could  venture  to 
give  this  wish  public  expression,  or  hope  to  realise  it 
with  some  chance  of  success,  we  should  attain  our  end, 
to  some  extent,  by  indirect  means;  for  example,  by  ex- 
cluding foreign  fabrics,  in  order  to  diminish  the  supply, 
and  thus  produce,  forcibly  and  to  our  profit,  a  scarcity 
of  clothing. 

In  the  same  way,  we  might  pass  in  review  all  other 
branches  of  industry,  and  we  should  always  find  that 
the  producers,  as  such,  have  anti-social  views.  "  The 
shopkeeper,"   says    Montaigne,    **  thrives    only    by    the 


ABUNDANCE— SCARCITY  1 1 

irregularities  of  youth ;  the  farmer  by  the  high  price  of 
corn,  the  architect  by  the  destruction  of  houses,  the  officers 
of  justice  by  lawsuits  and  quarrels.  Ministers  of  religion 
derive  their  distinction  and  employment  from  our  vices 
and  our  death.  No  physician  rejoices  in  the  health  of  his 
friends,  nor  soldiers  in  the  peace  of  their  country;  and 
so  of  the  rest." 

Hence  it  follows  that  if  the  secret  wishes  of  each 
producer  were  realised,  the  world  would  retrograde  rapidly 
towards  barbarism.  The  sail  would  supersede  steam,  the 
oar  would  supersede  the  sail,  and  general  traffic  would 
be  carried  on  by  the  carrier's  waggon ;  the  latter  would 
be  superseded  by  the  mule,  and  the  mule  by  the  pedlar. 
Wool  would  exclude  cotton,  cotton  in  its  turn  would 
exclude  wool,  and  so  on  until  the  dearth  of  all  things 
had  caused  man  himself  to  disappear  from  the  face  of 
the  earth. 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  legislative  power  and 
the  public  force  were  placed  at  the  disposal  of  Mimeral's 
committee,  and  that  each  member  of  that  association  had 
the  privilege  of  bringing  in  and  sanctioning  a  favourite 
law,  is  it  difficult  to  divine  to  what  sort  of  industrial  code 
the  public  would  be  subjected? 

If  we  now  proceed  to  consider  the  immediate  interest 
of  the  consumer,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  general  interest,  with  all  that  the  welfare 
of  society  calls  for.  When  the  purchaser  goes  to  market 
he  desires  to  find  it  well  stocked.  Let  the  seasons  be 
propitious  for  all  harvests ;  let  inventions,  more  and  more 
marvellous,  bring  within  reach  a  greater  and  greater 
number  of  products  and  enjoyments;  let  time  and  labour 
be  saved;  let  distances  be  effaced  by  the  perfection  and 
rapidity  of  transit;  let  the  spirit  of  justice  and  of  peace 
allow  of  a  diminished  weight  of  taxation ;  let  barriers  of 


12  FALLACIES    OF   PROTECTION 

every  kind  be  removed ; — in  all  this  the  interest  of  the 
consumer  runs  parallel  with  the  public  interest.  The 
consumer  may  push  his  secret  wishes  to  a  chimerical  and 
absurd  length,  without  these  wishes  becoming  antagonistic 
to  the  public  welfare.  He  may  desire  that  food  and 
shelter,  the  hearth  and  the  roof,  instruction  and 
morality,  security  and  peace,  power  and  health,  should 
be  obtained  without  exertion  and  without  measure, 
like  the  dust  of  the  highways,  the  water  of  the  brook, 
the  air  which  we  breathe;  and  yet  the  realisation  of 
his  desires  would  not  be  at  variance  with  the  good  of 
society. 

It  may  be  said  that,  if  these  wishes  were  granted, 
the  work  of  the  producer  would  become  more  and  more 
limited,  and  would  end  with  being  stopped  for  want  of 
aliment.  But  why?  Because,  on  this  extreme  supposi- 
tion, all  imaginable  wants  and  desires  would  be  fully 
satisfied.  Man,  like  Omnipotence,  would  create  all  things 
by  a  simple  act  of  volition.  Well,  on  this  hypothesis, 
what  reason  should  we  have  to  regret  the  stoppage  of 
industrial  production  ? 

I  made  the  supposition  not  long  ago  of  the  existence 
of  an  assembly  composed  of  workmen,  each  member  of 
which,  in  his  capacity  of  producer,  should  have  the  power 
of  passing  a  law  embodying  his  secret  wish,  and  I  said 
that  the  code  which  would  emanate  from  that  assembly 
would  be  monopoly  systematised,  the  theory  of  scarcity 
reduced  to  practice. 

In  the  same  way,  a  chamber  in  which  each  should 
consult  exclusively  his  own  immediate  interest  as  a  con- 
sumer, would  tend  to  systematise  liberty,  to  suppress  all 
restrictive  measures,  to  overthrow  all  artificial  barriers — 
in  a  word,  to  realise  the  theory  of  plenty. 

Hence   it  follows  :  — 

That    to   consult    exclusively    the   immediate    interest 


ABUNDANCE— SCARCITY  13 

of  the  producer,  is  to  consult  an  interest  which  is  anti- 
social ; 

That  to  take  for  basis  exclusively  the  immediate 
interest  of  the  consumer  would  be  to  take  for  basis  the 
general  interest. 

Let  me  enlarge  on  this  view  of  the  subject  a  little,  at 
the  risk  of  being  prolix, 

A  radical  antagonism  exists  between  seller  and  buyer/ 

The  former  desires  that  the  subject  of  the  bargain 
should  be  scarce,  its  supply  limited,  and  its  price  high. 

The  latter  desires  that  it  should  be  abundant,  its  supply 
large,  and  its  price  low. 

The  laws,  which  should  be  at  least  neutral,  take  the 
part  of  the  seller  against  the  buyer,  of  the  producer 
against  the  consumer,  of  dearness  against  cheapness, 
of  scarcity  against  abundance. 

They  proceed,  if  not  intentionally,  at  least  logically, 
on  this  datum  :  a  nation  is  rich  when  it  is  in  want  of 
everything. 

For  they  say,  it  is  the  producer  that  we  must  favour 
by  securing  him  a  good  market  for  his  product.  For 
this  purpose  it  is  necessary  to  raise  the  price,  and  in 
order  to  raise  the  price  we  must  restrict  the  supply;  and 
to  restrict  the  supply  is  to  create  scarcity. 

Just  let  us  suppose  that  at  the  present  moment,  when 
all  these  laws  are  in  full  force,  we  make  a  complete  in- 
ventory,  not  in   value  but  in  weight,   measure,   volume, 

*  The  author  has  rectified  the  terms  of  this  proposition  in  a  later 
work. — See  Harmonies  Economiques,  ch.  xi. — French  Editor.  [The 
translation  of  the  passage  referred  to  is  as  follows  :  "I  have  been 
reproached  with  reason  for  having  written  this  phrase—'  Between  the 
vendor  and  purchaser  exists  a  radical  antagonism.'  The  word  an- 
tagonism, above  all  with  the  word  radical  added,  goes  far  beyond  my 
meaning.  It  seems  to  indicate  a  permanent  opposition  of  interests,  and 
consequently  an  indestructible  social  discord ;  but  I  only  meant  to  speak 
of  that  temporary  debate  which  precedes  any  bargain  and  which  is 
inherent  in  the  very  idea  of  the  transaction."] 


14  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

quantity,  of  all  the  commodities  existing  in  the  country, 
which  are  fitted  to  satisfy  the  wants  and  tastes  of  its 
inhabitants — corn,  meat,  cloth,  fuel,  colonial  products, 
etc. 

Suppose,  again,  that  next  day  all  the  barriers  which 
oppose  the  introduction  of  foreign  products  are  removed. 

Lastly,  suppose  that  in  order  to  test  the  result  of  this 
reform  they  proceed  three  months  afterwards  to  make  a 
new  inventory. 

Is  it  not  true  that  there  will  be  found  in  France  more 
corn,  cattle,  cloth,  linen,  iron,  coal,  sugar,  etc.,  at  the 
date  of  the  second  than  at  the  date  of  the  first  inventory  ? 

So  true  is  this  that  our  protective  tariffs  have  no  other 
purpose  than  to  hinder  all  these  things  from  reaching 
us,  to  restrict  the  supply,  and  prevent  depreciation  and 
abundance. 

Now  I  would  ask.  Are  the  people  who  live  under  our 
laws  better  fed  because  there  is  less  bread,  meat,  and 
sugar  in  the  country  ?  Are  they  better  clothed  because 
there  is  less  cloth  and  linen  ?  Better  warmed  because  there 
is  less  coal  ?  Better  assisted  in  their  labour  because  there 
are  fewer  tools  and  le^ss  iron,  copper,  and  machinery? 

But  it  may  be  said.  If  the  foreigner  inundates  us  with 
his  products  he  will  carry  away  our  money. 

And  what  does  it  matter?  Men  are  not  fed  on  money. 
They  do  not  clothe  themselves  with  gold,  or  warm  them- 
selves with  silver.  What  matters  it  whether  there  is 
more  or  less  money  in  the  country  if  there  is  more  bread 
on  our  sideboards,  more  meat  in  our  larders,  more  linen 
in  our  wardrobes,  more  firewood  in  our  cellars. 

Restrictive  laws  always  land  us  in  this  dilemma  : 

Either  you  admit  that  they  produce  scarcity,  or  you 
do  not. 

If  you  admit  it,  you  avow  by  the  admission  that  you 
inflict  on  the  people  all  the  injury  in  your  power.     If  you 


ABUNDANCE— SCARCITY  15 

do  not  admit  it,  you  deny  having  restricted  the  supply  and 
raised  prices,  and  consequently  you  deny  having  favoured 
the  producer. 

What  you  do  is  either  hurtful  or  profitless,  injurious 
or  ineffectual.  It  never  can  be  attended  with  any  useful 
result. 

See  also  Harmonies  Economtques,  ch.  xi.,  and  also  Abundance, 
in  the  French  Collected  Edition,  vol.  v.,  p.  393. — Frenxh  EDITOR. 


CHAPTER     II 

OBSTACLE — CAUSE 

The  obstacle  mistaken  for  the  cause — scarcity  mistaken 
for  abundance — this  is  the  same  fallacy  under  another 
aspect;  and  it  is  well  to  study  it  in  all  its  phases. 

Man  is  originally  destitute  of  everything. 

Between  this  destitution  and  the  satisfaction  of  his 
wants  there  exist  a  multitude  of  obstacles  which  labour 
enables  us  to  surmount.  It  is  curious  to  inquire  how  and 
why  these  very  obstacles  to  his  material  prosperity  have 
come  to  be  mistaken  for  the  cause  of  that  prosperity. 

I  want  to  travel  a  hundred  miles.  But  between  the 
starting-point  and  the  place  of  my  destination,  mountains, 
rivers,  marshes,  impenetrable  forests,  brigands — in  a  word, 
obstacles — interpose  themselves;  and  to  overcome  these 
obstacles  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  employ  many  efforts, 
or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  that  others  should 
employ  many  efforts  for  me,  the  price  of  which  I  must 
pay  them.  It  is  clear  that  I  should  have  been  in  a  better 
situation  if  these  obstacles  had  not  existed. 

On  his  long  journey  through  life,  from  the  cradle  to 
the  grave,  man  has  need  to  assimilate  to  himself  a  pro- 
digious quantity  of  alimentary  substances,  to  protect  him- 
self against  the  inclemency  of  the  weather,  to  preserve 
himself  from  a  number  of  ailments,  or  cure  himself  of 
them.  Hunger,  thirst,  disease,  heat,  cold,  are  so  many 
obstacles  strewn  along  his  path.  In  a  state  of  isolation 
he  must  overcome  them  all,  by  hunting,  fishing,  tillage, 
spinning,  weaving,  building ;  and  it  is  clear  that  it  would 
be  better  for  him  that  these  obstacles  were  less  numerous 
and  formidable,  or,  better  still,  that  they  did  not  exist  at 

i6 


OBSTACLE— CAUSE  17 

all.  In  society  he  does  not  combat  these  obstacles  per- 
sonally, but  others  do  it  for  him ;  and  in  return  he  employs 
himself  in  removing  one  of  those  obstacles  which  are  en- 
countered b)uhis  fellow-men. 

It  is  clear  also,  considering  things  in  the  gross,  that  it 
would  be  better  for  men  in  the  aggregate,  or  for  society, 
that  these  obstacles  should  be  as  few  and  feeble  as  possible. 

But  when  we  come  to  scrutinise  the  social  phenomena 
in  detail,  and  men's  sentiments  as  modified  by  the  intro- 
duction of  exchange,  we  soon  perceive  how  they  have  come 
to  confound  wants  with  wealth,  the  obstacle  with  the  cause. 

The  separation  of  employments,  the  division  of  labour, 
which  results  from  the  faculty  of  exchanging,  causes  each 
man,  instead  of  struggling  on  his  own  account  to  over- 
come all  the  obstacles  which  surround  him,  to  combat  only 
one  of  them ;  he  overcomes  that  one  not  for  himself  but  for 
his  fellow-men,  who  in  turn  render  him  the  same  service. 

The  consequence  is  that  this  man,  in  combating  this 
obstacle  which  it  is  his  special  business  to  overcome  for 
the  sake  of  others,  sees  in  it  the  immediate  source  of  his 
own  wealth.  The  greater,  the  more  formidable,  the  more 
keenly  felt  this  obstacle  is,  the  greater  will  be  the  remunera- 
tion which  his  fellow-men  will  be  disposed  to  accord  him ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  more  ready  will  they  be  to  remove  the 
obstacles  which  stand  in  his  way. 

The  physician,  for  example,  does  not  bake  his  own 
bread,  or  manufacture  his  own  instruments,  or  weave  or 
make  his  own  coat.  Others  do  these  things  for  him,  and 
in  return  he  treats  the  diseases  with  which  his  patients  are 
afflicted.  The  more  numerous,  severe,  and  frequent  these 
diseases  are,  the  more  others  consent,  and  are  obliged,  to 
do  for  his  personal  comfort.  Regarding  it  from  this  point 
of  view,  disease,  that  general  obstacle  to  human  happiness, 
becomes  a  cause  of  material  prosperity  to  the  individual 
physician.  The  same  argument  applies  to  all  producers 
c 


i8  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

in  their  several  departments.  The  shipowner  derives  his 
profits  from  the  obstacle  called  distance;  the  agriculturist 
from  that  called  hunger;  the  manufacturer  of  cloth  from 
that  called  cold;  the  schoolmaster  lives  upon  ignorance; 
the  lapidary  upon  vanity;  the  attorney  on  cupidity;  the 
notary  upon  possible  bad  faith — just  as  the  physician  lives 
upon  the  diseases  of  men.  It  is  quite  true,  therefore,  that 
each  profession  has  an  immediate  interest  in  the  continua- 
tion, nay,  in  the  extension,  of  the  special  obstacle  which 
it  is  its  business  to  combat. 

Observing  this,  theorists  make  their  appearance,  and, 
founding  a  system  on  their  individual  sentiments,  tell  us  : 
Want  is  wealth,  labour  is  wealth,  obstacles  to  material 
prosperity  are  prosperity.  To  multiply  obstacles  is  to 
support  industry. 

Then  statesmen  intervene.  They  have  the  disposal  of 
the  public  force;  and  what  more  natural  than  to  make  it 
available  for  developing  and  multiplying  obstacles,  since 
this  is  developing  and  multiplying  wealth  ?  They  say,  for 
example  :  If  we  prevent  the  importation  of  iron  from  places 
where  it  is  abundant,  we  place  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
its  being  procured.  This  obstacle,  keenly  felt  at  home, 
will  induce  men  to  pay  in  order  to  be  set  free  from  it.  A 
certain  number  of  our  fellow-citizens  will  devote  themselves 
to  combating  it,  and  this  obstacle  will  make  their  fortune. 
The  greater  the  obstacle  is — that  is,  the  scarcer,  the  more 
inaccessible,  the  more  difficult  to  transport,  the  more  dis- 
tant from  the  place  where  it  is  to  be  used,  the  mineral 
sought  for  becomes — the  more  hands  will  be  engaged  in 
the  various  ramifications  of  this  branch  of  industry.  Ex- 
clude, then,  foreign  iron,  create  an  obstacle,  for  you 
thereby  create  the  labour  which  is  to  overcome  it. 

The  same  reasoning  leads  to  the  proscription  of 
machinery. 

Here,  for  instance,  are  men  who  are  in  want  of  casks 


OBSTACLE— CAUSE  19 

for  the  storage  of  their  wine.  This  is  an  obstacle;  and 
here  are  other  men  whose  business  it  is  to  remove  that 
obstacle  by  making  the  casks  that  are  wanted.  It  is  for- 
tunate, then,  that  this  obstacle  should  exist,  since  it  gives 
employment  to  a  branch  of  national  industry,  and  enriches 
a  certain  number  of  our  fellow-citizens.  But  then  we  have 
ingenious  machinery  invented  for  felling  the  oak,  cutting 
it  up  into  staves,  and  forming  them  into  the  wine-casks  that 
are  wanted.  By  this  means  the  obstacle  is  lessened,  and 
so  are  the  gains  of  the  cooper.  Let  us  maintain  both  at 
their  former  elevation  by  a  law,  and  put  down  the 
machinery. 

To  get  at  the  root  of  this  sophism  it  is  necessary  only 
to  reflect  that  human  labour  is  not  the  end,  but  the  means. 
It  never  remains  unemployed.  If  one  obstacle  is  removed, 
it  does  battle  with  another;  and  society  is  freed  from  two 
obstacles  by  the  same  amount  of  labour  which  was  formerly 
required  for  the  removal  of  one.  If  the  labour  of  the 
cooper  is  rendered  unnecessary  in  one  department,  it  will 
soon  take  another  direction.  But  how  and  from  what 
source  will  it  be  remunerated?  From  the  same  source 
exactly  from  which  it  is  remunerated  at  present ;  for  when 
a  certain  amount  of  labour  becomes  disposable  by  the 
removal  of  an  obstacle,  a  corresponding  amount  of  re- 
muneration becomes  disposable  also.  To  maintain  that 
human  labour  will  ever  come  to  want  employment,  would 
be  to  maintain  that  the  human  race  will  cease  to  encounter 
obstacles.  In  that  case  labour  would  not  only  be  im- 
possible; it  would  be  superfluous.  We  should  no  longer 
have  anything  to  do,  because  we  should  be  omnipotent; 
and  we  should  only  have  to  pronounce  our  fiat  in  order  to 
ensure  the  satisfaction  of  all  our  desires  and  the  supply  of 
all  our  wants.* 

*  See  ch.  x.  of  second  series,  and  ch.  iii.  and  xi.  of  the  Harmonies 
Economiques. 


CHAPTER     III 

EFFORT — RESULT 

We  have  just  seen  that  between  our  wants  and  the  satis- 
faction of  these  wants,  obstacles  are  interposed.  We 
succeed  in  overcoming  these  obstacles,  or  in  diminishing 
their  force,  by  the  employment  of  our  faculties.  We  may 
say,  in  a  general  way,  that  industry  is  an  effort  followed 
by  a  result. 

But  what  constitutes  the  measure  of  our  prosperity,  or 
of  our  wealth  ?  Is  it  the  result  of  the  effort  ?  or  is  it  the 
effort  itself  ?  A  relation  always  subsists  between  the  effort 
employed  and  the  result  obtained.  Progress  consists  in 
the  relative  enhancement  of  the  second  or  of  the  first  term 
of  this  relation. 

Both  theses  have  been  maintained;  and  in  political 
economy  they  have  divided  the  region  of  opinion  and 
of  thought. 

According  to  the  first  system,  wealth  is  the  result  of 
labour,  increasing  as  the  relative  proportion  of  result  to 
effort  increases.  Absolute  perfection,  of  which  God  is 
the  type,  consists  in  the  infinite  distance  interposed 
between  the  two  terms — in  this  sense,  effort  is  nil,  result 
infinite. 

The  second  system  teaches  that  it  is  the  effort  itself 
which  constitutes  the  measure  of  wealth.  To  make  pro- 
gress is  to  increase  the  relative  proportion  which  effort 
bears  to  result.  The  ideal  of  this  system  may  be  found 
in  the  sterile  and  eternal  efforts  of  Sisyphus.^ 

^  For  this  reason,  and   for  the  sake  of  conciseness,   the  reader  will 
pardon   us   for   designating  this  system  in   the  sequel   by  the   name  of 


EFFORT— RESULT  21 

The  first  system  naturally  welcomes  everything  which 
tends  to  diminish  pains  and  augment  products;  powerful 
machinery  which  increases  the  forces  of  man,  exchange 
which  allows  him  to  derive  greater  advantage  from  natural 
agents  distributed  in  various  proportions  over  the  face 
of  the  earth,  intelligence  which  discovers,  experience 
which  proves,  competition  which  stimulates,  etc. 

Logically,  the  second  invokes  everything  which  has 
the  effect  of  increasing  pains  and  diminishing  products; 
privileges,  monopolies,  restrictions,  prohibitions,  sup- 
pression of  machinery,  sterility,  etc. 

It  is  w^ell  to  remark  that  the  universal  practice  of 
mankind  always  points  to  the  principle  of  the  first  system. 
We  have  never  seen,  we  shall  never  see,  a  man  who 
labours  in  any  department,  be  he  agriculturist,  manu- 
facturer, merchant,  artificer,  soldier,  author,  or  philo- 
sopher, who  does  not  devote  all  the  powers  of  his  mind 
to  work  better,  to  work  with  more  rapidity,  to  work  more 
economically — in  a  word,  to  effect  trior e  with  less. 

The  opposite  doctrine  is  in  favour  only  with  theorists, 
deputies,  journalists,  statesmen,  ministers — men,  in  short, 
born  to  make  experiments  on  the  social  body. 

At  the  same  time,  we  may  observe,  that  in  what 
concerns  themselves  personally  they  act  as  everyone  else 
does,  on  the  principle  of  obtaining  from  labour  the 
greatest  possible  amount  of  useful  results. 

Perhaps  I  may  be  thought  to  exaggerate,  and  that 
there  are  no  true  sisyphists. 

If  it  be  argued  that  in  practice  they  do  not  press 
their  principle  to  its  most  extreme  consequences,  I 
willingly  grant  it.  This  is  always  the  case  when  one 
sets  out  with   a  false  principle.     Such  a  principle  soon 

sisyfhism.  [Sisyphus  in  Greek  mythology  was  condemned,  as  a  punish- 
ment for  his  wickedness  in  this  life,  to  roll  a  large  stone  from  the 
bottom  to  the  top  of  a  high  hill,  which,  whenever  it  reached  the  top, 
rolled  down  again,  and  thus  made  his  task  unending.] 


22  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

leads  to  results  so  absurd  and  so  mischievous  that  we 
are  obliged  to  stop  short.  This  is  the  reason  why 
practical  industry  never  admits  sisyphism;  punishment 
would  follow  error  too  closely  not  to  expose  it.  But  in 
matters  of  speculation,  such  as  theorists  and  statesmen 
deal  in,  one  may  pursue  a  false  principle  a  long  time 
before  discovering  its  falsity  by  the  complicated  conse- 
quences to  which  men  were  formerly  strangers;  and  when 
at  last  its  falsity  is  found  out,  the  authors  take  refuge 
in  the  opposite  principle,  turn  round,  contradict  them- 
selves, and  seek  their  justification  in  a  modern  maxim 
of  incomparable  absurdity  :  in  political  economy  there  is 
no  inflexible  rule,   no  absolute  principle. 

Let  us  see,  then,  if  thjese  two  opposite  principles 
which  I  have  just  described  do  not  predominate  by  turns, 
the  one  in  practical  industry,  the  other  in  industrial 
legislation. 

I  have  already  noticed  the  saying  of  M.  Bugeaud 
that  "when  bread  is  dear  agriculturists  become  rich"; 
but  in  M.  Bugeaud  are  embodied  two  separate  characters, 
the  agriculturist  and  the  legislator. 

As  an  agriculturist,  M.  Bugeaud  directs  all  his  efforts 
to  two  ends — to  save  labour,  and  obtain  cheap  bread. 
When  he  prefers  a  good  plough  to  a  bad  one;  when  he 
improves  his  pastures;  when,  in  order  to  pulverize  the 
soil,  he  substitutes  as  much  as  possible  the  action  of  the 
atmosphere  for  that  of  the  harrow  and  the  hoe;  when  he 
calls  to  his  aid  all  the  processes  of  which  science  and 
experiment  have  proved  the  efficacy — he  has  but  one 
object  in  view,  viz.  to  diminish  the  proportion  of  effort 
to  result.  We  have  indeed  no  other  test  of  the  ability 
of  a  cultivator,  and  the  perfection  of  his  processes,  than 
to  measure  to  what  extent  they  have  lessened  the  one 
and  added  to  the  other.  And  as  all  the  farmers  in  the 
world  act  upon  this  principle  we  may  assert  that  the  effort 


EFFORT— RESULT  23 

of  mankind  at  large  is  to  obtain,  for  their  own  benefit 
undoubtedly,  bread  and  all  other  products  cheaper,  to 
lessen  the  labour  needed  to  procure  a  given  quantity  of 
what  they  want. 

This  incontestable  tendency  of  mankind  once  estab- 
lished should,  it  would  seem,  reveal  to  the  legislator  the 
true  principle,  and  point  out  to  him  in  what  way  he 
should  aid  industry  (in  as  far  as  it  falls  within  his 
province  to  aid  it) ;  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  assert 
that  human  laws  should  run  counter  to  the  laws  of 
Providence. 

And  yet  we  have  heard  M.  Bugeaud,  as  a  deputy, 
exclaim  :  "  I  understand  nothing  of  this  theory  of  cheap- 
ness; I  should  like  better  to  see  bread  dearer  and  labour 
more  abundant."  And  following  out  this  doctrine,  the 
deputy  of  the  Dordogne  votes  legislative  measures,  the 
effect  of  which  is  to  hamper  exchanges,  for  the  very 
reason  that  they  procure  us  indirectly  what  direct  pro- 
duction could  not  procure  us  but  at  greater  expense. 

Now,  it  is  very  evident  that  M.  Bugeaud's  principle 
as  a  deputy  is  directly  opposed  to  the  principle  on  which 
he  acts  as  an  agriculturist.  To  act  consistently  he  should 
vote  against  all  legislative  restriction,  or  else  import  into 
his  farming  operations  the  principle  which  he  proclaims 
from  the  tribune.  We  should  then  see  him  sow  his 
corn  in  his  most  sterile  fields,  for  in  this  way  he  would 
succeed  in  working  much  to  obtain  little.  We  should 
see  him  throwing  aside  the  plough,  since  hand-culture 
would  satisfy  his  double  wish  for  dearer  bread  and  more 
abundant  labour. 

Restriction  has  for  its  avowed  object,  and  its  acknow- 
ledged effect,  to  increase  labour. 

It  has  also  for  its  avowed  object,  and  its  acknow- 
ledged effect,  to  cause  dearness,  which  means  simply 
scarcity  of  products;  so  that,  carried  out  to  its  extreme 


24  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

limits,  it  is  pure  sisyphisniy  such  as  we  have  defined  it — 
labour  infinite ^  product  nil. 

Baron  Charles  Dupin,  the  light  of  the  peerage,  it  is 
said,  on  economic  science,  accuses  railways  of  injuring 
navigation;  and  it  is  certain  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of 
a  more  perfect  to  restrict  the  use  of  a  less  perfect  means 
of  conveyance.  But  railways  cannot  hurt  navigation 
except  by  attracting  traffic;  and  they  cannot  attract  traffic 
but  by  conveying  goods  and  passengers  more  cheaply; 
and  they  cannot  convey  them  more  cheaply  but  by 
diminishing  the  proportion  which  the  effort  employed 
hears  to  the  result  obtained,  seeing  that  that  is  the  very 
thing  which  constitutes  cheapness.  When,  then,  Baron 
Dupin  deplores  this  diminution  of  the  labour  employed 
to  effect  a  given  result,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  sisyphism 
which  he  preaches.  Logically,  since  he  prefers  the  ship 
to  the  rail,  he  should  prefer  the  cart  to  the  ship,  the 
pack-saddle  to  the  cart,  and  the  pannier  to  all  ofher 
known  means  of  conveyance,  for  it  is  the  latter  which 
exacts  the  most  labour  with  the  least  result. 

"  Labour  constitutes  the  wealth  of  a  people,"  said 
M.  de  Saint-Cricq,  that  Minister  of  Commerce  who  has 
imposed  so  many  restrictions  upon  trade.  We  must  not 
suppose  that  this  was  an  elliptical  expression,  meaning, 
"  The  results  of  labour  constitute  the  wealth  of  a  people." 
No,  this  economist  distinctly  intended  to  affirm  that  it 
is  the  intensity  of  labour  which  is  the  measure  of  wealth, 
and  the  proof  of  it  is  that,  from  consequence  to  conse- 
quence, from  one  restriction  to  another,  he  induced  France 
(and  in  this  he  thought  he  was  doing  her  good)  to 
expend  double  the  amount  of  labour,  in  order,  for  ex- 
ample, to  provide  herself  with  an  equal  quantity  of  iron. 
In  England  iron  was  then  at  eight  francs,  while  in  France 
it  cost  sixteen  francs.  Taking  a  day's  labour  at  one 
franc,  it  is  clear  that  France  could,  by  means  of  exchange, 


EFFORT— RESULT  25 

procure  a  quintal  of  iron  by  subtracting  eight  days' 
work  from  the  aggregate  national  labour.  In  consequence 
of  the  restrictive  measures  of  M.  de  Saint-Cricq,  France 
was  obliged  to  expend  sixteen  days'  labour  in  order  to 
provide  herself  with  a  quintal  of  iron  by  direct  production. 
Double  the  labour  for  the  same  satisfaction,  hence  double 
the  wealth.  Then  it  follows  that  wealth  is  not  measured 
by  the  result,  but  by  the  intensity  of  the  labour.  Is  not 
this  sisyphism  in  all  its  purity? 

And  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  as  to  his 
meaning,  the  Minister  takes  care  afterwards  to  explain 
more  fully  his  ideas;  and  as  he  had  just  before  called 
the  intensity  of  labour  wealth,  he  goes  on  to  call  the 
more  abundant  results  of  that  labour,  or  the  more 
abundant  supply  of  things  proper  to  satisfy  our  wants, 
poverty.  ''  Everywhere,"  he  says,  '*  machinery  has  taken 
the  place  of  manual  labour;  everywhere  production  super- 
abounds;  everywhere  the  equilibrium  between  the  faculty 
of  producing  and  the  means  of  consuming  is  destroyed." 
We  see,  then,  to  what,  in  M.  de  Saint-Cricq's  estimation, 
the  critical  situation  of  the  country  was  owing  :  it  was 
to  having  produced  too  much,  and  her  labour  being  too 
intelligent,  and  too  fruitful.  We  were  too  well  fed,  too 
well  clothed,  too  well  provided  with  everything;  a  too 
rapid  production  surpassed  all  our  desires.  It  was 
necessary,  then,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  evil,  and  for  that 
purpose  to  force  us,  by  restrictions,,  to  labour  more  in 
order  to  produce  less. 

I  have  referred  likewise  to  the  opinions  of  another 
Minister  of  Commerce,  M.  d'Argout.  They  deserve  to 
be  dwelt  upon  for  an  instant.  Desiring  to  strike  a  for- 
midable blow  at  beet-root  culture,  he  says,  **  Undoubtedly, 
the  cultivation  of  beet-root  is  useful,  but  this  utility  is 
limited.  The  developments  attributed  to  it  are  exag- 
gerated.   To  be  convinced  of  this  it  is  sufficient  to  observe 


26  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

that  this  culture  will  be  necessarily  confined  within  the 
limits  of  consumption.  Double,  triple,  if  you  will,  the 
present  consumption  of  France,  you  will  always  find  that 
a  very  trifling  portion  of  the  soil  will  satisfy  the  require^ 
ments  of  that  consumption.'^  (This  is  surely  rather  a 
singular  subject  of  complaint!)  '*  Do  you  desire  proof 
of  this?  How  many  hectares^  had  we  under  beet-root 
in  1828? — 3,130,  which  is  equivalent  to  i-io540th  of  our 
arable  land.  At  the  present  time,  when  indigenous  sugar 
supplies  one-third  of  our  consumption,  how  much  land 
is  devoted  to  that  culture? — 16,700  hectares,  or  i-i978th 
of  the  arable  land,  or  45  centiares  in  each  commune. 
Suppose  indigenous  sugar  already  supplied  our  whole 
consumption  we  should  have  only  48,000  hectares  under 
beet-root,  or  i -689th  of  the  arable  land.*' 

There  are  two  things  to  be  remarked  upon  in  this 
quotation — the  facts  and  the  doctrine.  The  facts  tend  to 
prove  that  little  land,  little  capital,  and  little  labour  are 
required  to  produce  a  large  quantity  of  sugar,  and  that 
each  commune  of  France  would  be  abundantly  provided 
by  devoting  to  beet-root  cultivation  one  hectare  of  its 
soil.  The  doctrine  consists  in  regarding  this  circum- 
stance as  adverse,  and  in  seeing  in  the  very  power  and 
fertility  of  the  new  industry,  a  limit  to  its  utility. 

I  do  not  mean  to  constitute  myself  here  the  defender 
of  beet-root  culture,  or  a  judge  of  the  strange  facts  ad- 
vanced by  M.  d'Argout;  but  it  is  worth  while  to  scrutinise 
the  doctrine  of  a  statesman  to  whom  France  for  a  long 
time  entrusted  the  care  of  her  agriculture  and  of  her 
commerce. 

I  remarked  at  the  outset  that  a  variable  relation  exists 
between  an  industrial  effort  and  its  result;  that  absolute 
imperfection  consists  in  an  infinite  effort  without  any 
result;  absolute  perfection  in  an  unlimited  result  without 

*  Hectare  =  2  acres,  i  rood,  35  perchea 


EFFORT— RESULT  27 

any  effort ;  and  perfectibility  in  the  progressive  diminution 
of  effort  compared  with  the  result. 

But  M.  d'Argout  tells  us  there  is  death  where  we 
think  we  perceive  life,  and  that  the  importance  of  any 
branch  of  industry  is  in  direct  proportion  to  its  power- 
lessness.  What  are  we  to  expect,  lor  instance,  from  the 
cultivation  of  beet-root?  Do  you  not  see  that  48,000 
hectares  of  land,  with  capital  and  manual  labour  in  pro- 
portion, are  sufficient  to  supply  all  France  with  sugar? 
Then,  this  is  a  branch  of  industry  of  limited  utility; 
limited,  of  course,  with  reference  to  the  amount  of  labour 
which  it  demands,  the  only  way  in  which,  according  to 
the  ex-Minister,  any  branch  of  industry  can  be  useful. 
This  utility  would  be  still  more  limited  if,  owing  to  the 
fertility  of  the  soil  and  the  richness^  of  the  beet-root,  we 
could  reap  from  24,000  hectares  what  at  present  we  only 
obtain  from  48,000.  Oh !  were  only  twenty  times,  a 
hundred  times,  more  land,  capital  and  labour  necessary 
to  yield  us  the  same  result,  so  much  the  better.  We 
might  build  some  hopes  on  this  new  branch  of  industry, 
and  it  would  be  worthy  of  state  protection,  for  it  would 
offer  a  vast  field  to  our  national  industry.  But  to  produce 
much  with  little  I  That  is  a  bad  example,  and  it  is  time 
for  the  law  to  interfere. 

But  what  is  true  with  regard  to  sugar  cannot  be  other- 
wise with  regard  to  bread.  If,  then,  the  utility  of  any 
branch  of  industry  is  to  be  estimated  not  by  the  amount 
of  satisfactions  it  is  fitted  to  procure  us  with  a  determinate 
amount  of  labour,  but,  on  the  contrary,  by  the  amount  of 
labour  which  it  exacts  in  order  to  yield  us  a  determinate 
amount  of  satisfactions,  what  we  ought  evidently  to  desire 
is,  that  each  acre  of  land  should  yield  less  corn,  and  each 
grain  of  corn  less  nourishment;  in  other  words,  that  our 
land  should  be  comparatively  barren ;  for  then  the  quantity 
of  land,  capital,  and  manual  labour  that  would  be  required 


28  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

for  the  maintenance  of  our  population  would  be  much 
more  considerable ;  we  could  then  say  that  the  demand  for 
human  labour  would  be  in  direct  proportion  to  this  barren- 
ness. The  aspirations  of  MM.  Bugeaud,  Saint-Cricq, 
Dupin,  and  d'Argout  would  then  be  satisfied ;  bread  would 
be  dear,  labour  abundant,  and  France  rich — rich  at  least 
in  the  sense  in  which  these  gentlemen  understand  the  word. 

What  we  should  desire  also  is,  that  human  intelligence 
should  be  enfeebled  or  extinguished ;  for,  as  long  as  it 
survives,  it  will  be  continually  endeavouring  to  augment 
the  proportion  which  the  end  bears  to  the  means,  and 
which  the  product  bears  to  the  labour.  It  is  in  that 
precisely  that  intelligence  consists. 

Thus,  it  appears  that  sisyphism  has  been  the  doctrine 
of  all  the  men  who  have  been  entrusted  with  our  industrial 
destinies.  It  would  be  unfair  to  reproach  them  with  it. 
This  principle  guides  Ministers  only  because  it  is  pre- 
dominant in  the  Chambers;  and  it  predominates  in  the 
Chambers  only  because  it  is  sent  there  by  the  electoral 
body,  and  the  electoral  body  is  imbued  with  it  only  because 
public  opinion  is  saturated  with  it. 

I  think  it  right  to  repeat  here  that  I  do  not  accuse  men 
such  as  MM.  Bugeaud,  Dupin,  Saint-Cricq,  and  d'Argout 
of  being  absolutely  and  under  all  circumstances  sisyphists. 
They  are  certainly  not  so  in  their  private  transactions;  for 
in  these  they  always  desire  to  obtain  by  way  of  exchange 
what  would  cost  them  dearer  to  procure  by  direct  pro- 
duction; but  I  affirm  they  are  sisyphists  when  they  hinder 
the  country  from  doing  the  same  thing.^ 

^  See   on   the   same   subject,    second   series,    ch.    xii.,    and    Harmonies 
Economiques,  ch.   vi. 


CHAPTER    IV 

TO  EQUALISE  THE  CONDITIONS   OF   PRODUCTION 

It  has  been  said — but  in  case  I  should  be  accused  of 
putting  fallacies  into  the  mouths  of  the  protectionists,  I 
shall  allow  one  of  their  most  vigorous  athletes  to  speak 
for  them. 

"  It  has  been  thought  that  protection  in  our  case  should 
simply  represent  the  difference  which  exists  between  the 
cost  price  of  a  commodity  which  we  produce  and  the  cost 
price  of  the  same  commodity  produced  by  our  neighbours. 
.  .  .  A  protective  duty  calculated  on  this  basis  would 
only  ensure  free  competition  .  .  . ;  free  competition 
exists  only  when  there  is  equality  in  the  conditions  and  in 
the  charges.  In  the  case  of  a  horse-race,  we  ascertain 
the  weight  which  each  horse  has  to  carry,  and  so  equalise 
the  conditions;  without  that  there  could  be  no  fair  com- 
petition. In  the  case  of  trade,  if  one  of  the  sellers  can 
bring  his  commodity  to  market  at  less  cost,  he  ceases  to 
be  a  competitor,  and  becomes  a  monopolist.  .  .  .  Do 
away  with  this  protection  which  represents  the  difference 
of  cost  price,  and  the  foreigner  invades  our  markets  and 
acquires  a  monopoly."^ 

"Everyone  must  wish,  for  his  own  sake,  as  well  as  for 
the  sake  of  others,  that  the  production  of  the  country 
should  be  protected  against  foreign  competition,  when- 
ever the  latter  can  furnish  products  at  a  lower  price. ''^^ 

This  argument  recurs  continually  in  works  of  the  pro- 
tectionist school.     I  propose  to  examine  it  carefully,  and  I 

^  M.  le   Vicotnte  de  Romanet. 
'  Matthieu  de  Dombasle, 

29 


30  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

solicit  earnestly  the  reader's  patience  and  attention.  I 
shall  consider,  first  of  all,  the  inequalities  which  are  attri- 
butable to  nature,  and  afterwards  those  which  are 
attributable  to  diversity  of  taxation. 

In  this,  as  in  other  cases,  we  shall  find  protectionist 
theorists  viewing  their  subject  from  the  producer's  stand- 
point, whilst  we  advocate  the  cause  of  the  unfortunate 
consumers,  whose  interests  they  studiously  keep  out  of 
sight.  They  institute  a  comparison  between  the  field  of 
industry  and  the  turf.  But  as  regards  the  latter,  the  race 
is  at  once  the  means  and  the  end.  The  public  feel  no 
interest  in  the  competition  beyond  the  competition  itself. 
When  you  start  your  horses,  your  end,  your  object,  is 
to  find  out  which  is  the  swiftest  runner,  and  I  see  your 
reason  for  equalising  the  weights.  But  if  your  end,  your 
object,  were  to  secure  the  arrival  of  some  important  and 
urgent  news  at  the  winning-post,  could  you,  without  incon- 
sistency, throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  anyone  who  should 
offer  you  the  best  means  of  expediting  your  message? 
This  is  what  you  do  in  commercial  affairs.  You  forget  the 
end,  the  object  sought  to  be  attained,  which  is  material 
prosperity ;  you  disregard  it,  you  sacrifice  it  to  a  veritable 
petitio  principii;  in  plain  language,  you  are  begging  the 
question. 

But  since  we  cannot  bring  our  opponents  to  our  point 
of  view,  let  us  place  ourselves  in  theirs,  and  examine  the 
question  in  its  relations  with  production. 

I  shall  endeavour  to  prove  : 

ist. — That  to  level  and  equalise  the  conditions  of  labour 
is  to  attack  exchange  in  its  essence  and  principle. 

2nd. — That  it  is  not  true  that  the  labour  of  a  country 
is  neutralised  by  the  competition  of  more  favoured 
countries. 

3rd. — That  if  that  were  true,  protective  duties  would  not 
equalise  the  conditions  of  production. 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  31 

4th.— That  liberty,  freedom  of  trade,  levels  these  con- 
ditions as  much  as  they  can  be  levelled. 

5th. — That  the  least  favoured  countries  gain  most  by 
exchange. 

I.  To  level  and  equalise  the  conditions  of  labour  is  not 
simply  to  cramp  exchanges  in  certain  branches  of  trade, 
it  is  to  attack  exchange  in  its  principle,  for  its  principle 
rests  upon  that  very  diversity,  upon  those  very  inequalities 
of  fertihty,  aptitude,  climate,  and  temperature,  which  you 
desire  to  efface.  If  Guienne  sends  wine  to  Brittany,  and 
if  Brittany  sends  corn  to  Guienne,  it  arises  from  their 
being  placed  under  different  conditions  of  production.  Is 
there  a  different  law  for  international  exchanges?  To 
urge  against  international  exchanges  that  inequality  of 
conditions  which  gives  rise  to  them,  and  explains  them, 
is  to  argue  against  their  very  existence.  If  protectionists 
had  on  their  side  sufficient  logic  and  power,  they  would 
reduce  men,  like  snails,  to  a  state  of  absolute  isolation. 
Moreover,  there  is  not  one  of  their  fallacies  which,  when 
submitted  to  the  test  of  rigorous  deductions,  does  not 
obviously  tend  to  destruction  and  annihilation. 

II.  It  is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  inequality  of 
conditions  existing  between  two  similar  branches  of  in- 
dustry entails  necessarily  the  ruin  of  that  which  is  least 
favourably  situated.  On  the  turf,  if  one  horse  gains  the 
prize,  the  other  loses  it ;  but  when  two  horses  are  employed 
in  useful  labour,  each  produces  a  beneficial  result  in  pro- 
portion to  its  powers;  and  if  the  more  vigorous  renders 
the  greater  service,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  other 
renders  no  service  at  all.  We  cultivate  wheat  in  all  the 
departments  of  France,  although  there  are  between  them 
enormous  differences  of  fertility;  and  if  there  be  any  one 
department  which  does  not  cultivate  wheat,  it  is  because  it 
is  not  profitable  to  engage  in  that  species  of  culture  in  that 


32  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

locality.  In  the  same  way,  analogy  shows  us  that  under 
the  regime  of  liberty,  in  spite  of  similar  differences,  they 
produce  wheat  in  all  the  countries  of  Europe ;  and  if  there 
be  one  which  abandons  the  cultivation  of  that  grain,  it  is 
because  it  is  found  more  for  its  interest  to  give  another 
direction  to  the  employment  of  its  land,  labour,  and  capital. 
And  why  should  the  fertility  of  one  department  not  para- 
lyse the  agriculturist  of  a  neighbouring  department  which 
is  less  favourably  situated  ?  Because  the  economic 
phenomena  have  a  flexibility,  an  elasticity,  levelling 
powers,  so  to  speak,  which  appear  to  have  altogether 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  protectionist  school.  That  school 
accuses  us  of  being  given  up  to  system ;  but  it  is  the  pro- 
tectionists who  are  systematic  in  the  last  degree,  if  the 
spirit  of  system  consists  in  bolstering  up  arguments  which 
rest  upon  one  fact  instead  of  upon  an  aggregation  of  facts. 
In  the  example  which  I  have  given,  it  is  the  difference  in 
the  value  of  lands  which  compensates  the  difference  in  their 
fertility.  Your  field  produces  three  times  more  than  mine. 
Yes,  but  it  has  cost  you  ten  times  more,  and  I  can  still 
compete  with  you.  This  is  the  whole  mystery.  And  ob- 
serve that  superiority  in  some  respects  leads  to  inferiority 
in  others.  It  is  just  because  your  land  is  more  fertile  that 
it  is  dearer;  so  that  it  is  not  accidentally,  but  necessarily, 
that  the  equilibrium  is  established,  or  tends  to  be  estab- 
lished; and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  liberty  is  the  system 
which  is  most  favourable  to  this  tendency. 

I  have  referred  to  a  branch  of  agricultural  industry; 
I  might  as  well  have  referred  to  industry  in  a  different 
department.  There  are  tailors  at  Quimper,  and  that  does 
not  hinder  there  being  tailors  also  in  Paris,  though  the 
latter  pay  a  higher  rent,  and  live  at  much  greater  expense. 
But  then  they  have  a  different  set  of  customers,  and  that 
serves  not  only  to  redress  the  balance,  but  to  make  it 
incline  to  their  side. 


CONDITIONS   OF    PRODUCTION  33 

When  we  speak,  then,  of  equaHsing  the  conditions  of 
labour,  we  must  not  omit  to  examine  whether  liberty  does 
not  give  us  what  we  seek  from  an  arbitrary  system. 

This  natural  levelling  power  of  the  economic  pheno- 
mena is  so  important  to  the  question  we  are  considering, 
and  at  the  same  time  so  fitted  to  inspire  us  with  admira- 
tion of  the  providential  wisdom  which  presides  over  the 
equitable  government  of  society,  that  I  must  ask  permission 
to  dwell  upon  it  for  a  little. 

The  protectionist  gentlemen  tell  us :  Such  or  such  a 
people  have  over  us  an  advantage  in  the  cheapness  of 
coal,  of  iron,  of  machinery,  of  capital — we  cannot  compete 
with  them. 

We  shall  examine  the  proposition  afterwards  under  all 
its  aspects.  At  present,  I  confine  myself  to  the  inquiry 
whether,  when  a  superiority  and  an  inferiority  are  both 
present,  they  do  not  possess  in  themselves,  the  one  an 
ascending,  the  other  a  descending  force,  which  must 
ultimately  bring  them  back  to  a  just  equilibrium. 

Suppose  two  countries,  A  and  B.  A  possesses  over  B 
all  kinds  of  advantages.  You  infer  from  this  that  every 
sort  of  industry  will  concentrate  itself  in  A,  and  that  B  is 
powerless.  A,  you  say,  sells  much  more  than  it  buys; 
B  buys  much  more  than  it  sells.  I  might  dispute  this,  but 
I  respect  your  hypothesis. 

On  this  hypothesis,  labour  is  much  in  demand  in  A, 
and  will  soon  rise  in  price  there. 

Iron,  coal,  land,  food,  capital  are  much  in  demand  in 
A,  and  they  will  soon  rise  in  price  there. 

Contemporaneously  with  this,  labour,  iron,  coal,  land, 
food,  capital  are  in  little  request  in  B,  and  will  soon  fall 
in  price  there.  ^^^ 

Nor  is  this  all.  While  A  is  always  selling,  and  B^s 
always  buying,  money  passes  from  B  to  A.  It  becomes 
abundant  in  A,  and  scarce  in  B. 

D 


34  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

But  abundance  of  money  means  that  we  must  have 
plenty  of  it  to  buy  everything  else.  Then  in  A,  to  the  real 
deafness  which  arises  from  a  very  active  demand,  there  is 
added  a  nominal  dearness,  which  is  due  to  a  redundancy 
of  the  precious  metals. 

Scarcity  of  money  means  that  little  is  required  for  each 
purchase.  Then  in  B  a  nominal  cheapness  comes  to  be 
combined  with  real  cheapness. 

In  these  circumstances,  industry  will  have  all  sorts  of 
motives — motives,  if  I  may  say  so,  carried  to  the  highest 
degree  of  intensity — to  desert  A  and  establish  itself  in  B. 

Or,  to  come  nearer  what  would  actually  take  place 
under  such  circumstances,  we  may  affirm  that  sudden 
displacements  being  so  repugnant  to  the  nature  of  in- 
dustry, such  a  transfer  would  not  have  been  so  long 
delayed,  but  that  from  the  beginning,  under  the  free 
system,  it  would  have  gradually  and  progressively  shared 
and  distributed  itself  between  A  and  B,  according  to  the 
laws  of  supply  and  demand — that  is  to  say,  according  to 
the  laws  of  justice  and  utility. 

And  when  I  assert  that  if  it  were  possible  for  industry 
to  concentrate  itself  upon  one  point,  that  very  circumstance 
would  set  in  motion  an  irresistible  decentralising  force,  I 
indulge  in  no  idle  hypothesis. 

Let  us  listen  to  what  was  said  by  a  manufacturer  in 
addressing  the  Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce  (I  omit 
the  figures  by  which  he  supported  his  demonstration) : 

"Formerly  we  exported  stuffs;  then  that  exportation 
gave  place  to  that  of  yarns,  which  are  the  raw  material  of 
stuffs ;  then  to  that  of  machines,  which  are  the  instruments 
for  producing  yarn ;  afterwards  to  the  exportation  of  the 
coital  with  which  we  construct  our  machines;  finally,  to 
that  of  our  workmen  and  our  industrial  skill,  which  are 
the  source  of  our  capital.  All  these  elements  of  labour, 
one  after  the  other,  are  set  to  work  wherever  they  find  the 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  35 

most  advantageous  opening,  wherever  the  expense  of 
living  is  cheaper  and  the  necessaries  of  life  are  most  easily 
procured;  and  at  the  present  day,  in  Prussia,  in  Austria, 
in  Saxony,  in  Switzerland,  in  Italy,  we  see  manufactures 
on  an  immense  scale  founded  and  supported  by  English 
capital,  worked  by  English  operatives,  and  directed  by 
English  engineers." 

You  see  very  clearly,  then,  that  nature,  or  rather  that 
Providence,  more  wise,  more  far-seeing  than  your  narrow 
and  rigid  theory  supposes,  has  not  ordered  this  concentra- 
tion of  industry,  this  monopoly  of  all  advantages  upon 
which  you  found  your  reasoning  as  upon  a  fact  which  is 
unalterable  and  without  remedy.  Nature  has  provided, 
by  means  as  simple  as  they  are  infallible,  that  there  should 
be  dispersion,  diffusion,  solidarity,  simultaneous  progress; 
all  constituting  a  state  of  things  which  your  restrictive 
laws  paralyse  as  much  as  they  can ;  for  the  tendency  of 
such  laws  is,  by  isolating  communities,  to  render  the 
diversity  of  condition  much  more  marked,  to  prevent 
equalisation,  hinder  fusion,  neutralise  countervailing  cir- 
cumstances, and  segregate  nations,  whether  in  their  superi- 
ority or  in  their  inferiority  of  condition. 

III.  In  the  third  place,  to  contend  that  by  a  protective 
duty  you  equalise  the  conditions  of  production,  is  to  give 
currency  to  an  error  by  a  deceptive  form  of  speech.  It  is 
not  true  that  an  import  duty  equalises  the  conditions  of 
production.  These  remain,  after  the  imposition  of  the 
duty,  the  same  as  they  were  before.  At  most,  all  that  such 
a  duty  equalises  are  the  conditions  of  sale.  It  may  be 
said,  perhaps,  that  I  am  playing  upon  words,  but  I  throw 
back' the  accusation.  It  is  for  my  opponents  to  show  that 
production  and  sale  are  synonymous  terms;  and  if  they 
cannot  do  this,  I  am  warranted  in  fastening  upon  them 
the  reproach,  if  not  of  playing  on  words,  at  least  of  mixing 
them  up  and  confusing  them. 


36  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean  by  an  example  :  I  suppose 
some  Parisian  speculators  to  devote  themselves  to  the 
production  of  oranges.  They  know  that  the  oranges  of 
Portugal  can  be  sold  in  Paris  for  a  penny  apiece,  whilst 
they,  on  account  of  the  frames  and  hot-houses  which  the 
colder  climate  would  render  necessary,  could  not  sell  them 
for  less  than  a  shilling  as  a  remunerative  price.  They 
demand  that  Portuguese  oranges  should  have  a  duty  of 
elevenpence  imposed  upon  them.  By  means  of  this  duty, 
they  say,  the  conditions  of  production  will  be  equalised; 
and  the  Chamber,  giving  effect,  as  it  always  does,  to  such 
reasoning,  inserts  in  the  tariff  a  duty  of  elevenpence  upon 
every  foreign  orange. 

Now,  I  maintain  that  the  conditions  of  production  are 
in  nowise  changed.  The  law  has  made  no  change  on  the 
heat  of  the  sun  of  Lisbon,  or  on  the  frequency  and  inten- 
sity of  the  frosts  of  Paris.  The  ripening  of  oranges  will 
continue  to  go  on  naturally  on  the  banks  of  the  Tagus, 
and  artificially  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine — that  is  to  say, 
much  more  human  labour  will  be  required  in  the  one 
country  than  in  the  other.  The  conditions  of  sale  are  what 
have  been  equalised.  The  Portuguese  must  now  sell  us 
their  oranges  at  a  shilling,  elevenpence  of  which  goes  to 
pay  the  tax.  That  tax  will  be  paid,  it  is  evident,  by  the 
French  consumer.  And  look  at  the  whimsical  result. 
Upon  each  Portuguese  orange  consumed,  the  country  will 
lose  nothing,  for  the  extra  elevenpence  charged  to  the 
consumer  will  be  paid  into  the  treasury.  This  will  cause 
displacement,  but  not  loss.  But  upon  each  French  orange 
consumed  there  will  be  a  loss  of  elevenpence,  or  nearly  so, 
for  the  purchaser  will  certainly  lose  that  sum,  and  the  seller 
as  certainly  will  not  gain  it,  seeing  that  by  the  hypothesis 
he  will  only  have  received  the  cost  price.  I  leave  it  to 
the  protectionists  to  draw  the  inference. 

IV.  If  I  have  dwelt  upon  this  distinction  between  the 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  37 

conditions  of  production  and  the  conditions  of  sale,  a 
distinction  which  the  protectionists  will  no  doubt  pro- 
nounce paradoxical,  it  is  because  it  leads  me  to  inflict  on 
them  another,  and  a  much  stranger,  paradox,  which  is 
this :  Would  you  equalise  effectually  the  conditions  of 
production,  leave  exchange  free  ? 

Now,  really,  it  will  be  said,  this  is  too  much;  you 
must  be  making  game  of  us.  Well,  then,  were  it  only  for 
curiosity,  I  entreat  the  gentlemen  protectionists  to  follow 
me  on  to  the  conclusion  of  my  argument.  It  will  not 
be  long.     I  revert  to  my  former  illustration. 

Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  average  daily 
wage  which  a  Frenchman  earns  is  equal  to  a  shilling, 
and  it  follows  incontestably  that  to  produce  directly  an 
orange  in  France,  a  day's  work,  or  its  equivalent,  is  re- 
quired ;  while  to  produce  the  value  of  a  Portuguese  orange 
only  a  twelfth  of  that  day's  labour  would  be  necessary; 
which  means  exactly  this,  that  the  sun  does  at  Lisbon  what 
human  labour  does  at  Paris.  Now,  is  it  not  very  evident 
that  if  I  can  produce  an  orange,  or,  what  comes  to  the 
same  thing,  the  means  of  purchasing  one,  with  a  twelfth 
part  of  a  day's  labour,  I  am  placed,  with  respect  to  this 
production,  under  exactly  the  same  conditions  as  the 
Portuguese  producer  himself,  excepting  the  carriage,  which 
must  be  at  my  expense.  It  is  certain,  then,  that  liberty 
equalises  the  conditions  of  production  direct  or  indirect, 
as  far  as  they  can  be  equalised,  since  it  leaves  no  other 
difference,  but  the  inevitable  one  arising  from  the  expense 
of  transport. 

I  add,  that  liberty  equalises  also  the  conditions  of 
enjoyment,  of  satisfaction,  of  consumption,  with  which 
the  Protectionists  never  concern  themselves,  and  which 
are  yet  the  essential  consideration,  consumption  being 
the  end  and  object  of  all  our  industrial  efforts.  In  virtue 
of   Free  Trade   we  enjoy   the  sun   of   Portugal   like   the 


38  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

Portuguese  themselves.  The  inhabitants  of  Havre  and 
the  citizens  of  London  are  put  in  possession,  and  on  the 
same  conditions,  of  all  the  mineral  resources  which  nature 
has  bestowed  on  Newcastle. 

V.  Gentlemen  protectionists,  you  find  me  in  a  para- 
doxical humour;  and  I  am  disposed  to  go  further  still. 
I  say,  and  I  sincerely  think,  that  if  two  countries  are 
placed  under  unequal  conditions  of  production,  it  is  that 
one  of  the  two  which  is  least  favoured  by  nature  which 
has  most  to  gain  by  Free  Trade.  To  prove  this,  I  must 
depart  a  little  from  the  usual  form  of  such  a  work  as 
this.  I  shall  do  so  nevertheless,  first  of  all,  because  the 
entire  question  lies  there,  and  also  because  it  will  afford 
me  an  opportunity  of  explaining  an  economic  law  of  the 
highest  importance,  and  which,  if  rightly  understood, 
appears  to  me  to  be  fitted  to  bring  back  to  the  science 
all  those  sects  who  in  our  day  seek  in  the  land  of 
chimeras  that  social  harmony  which  they  fail  to  discover 
in  nature.  I  refer  to  the  law  of  consumption,  which  it 
is  perhaps  to  be  regretted  that  the  majority  of  economists 
have  neglected. 

Consumption  is  the  end  and  final  cause  of  all  the 
economic  phenomena,  and  it  is  in  consumption  conse- 
quently that  we  must  expect  to  find  their  ultimate  and 
definitive  solution. 

Nothing,  whether  favourable  or  unfavourable,  can 
abide  permanently  with  the  producer.  The  advantages 
which  nature  and  society  bestow  upon  him,  the  incon- 
veniences he  may  experience,  glide  past  him,  so  to  speak, 
and  are  absorbed  and  mixed  up  with  the  community  in 
as  far  as  the  community  represents  consumers.  This  is 
an  admirable  law  both  in  its  cause  and  in  its  effects,  and 
he  who  shall  succeed  in  clearly  describing  it  is  entitled, 
in  my  opinion,  to  say,  "  I  have  not  passed  through  life 
without  paying  my  tribute  to  society." 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  39 

Everything  which  favours  the  work  of  production  is 
welcomed  with  joy  by  the  producer,  for  the  immediate 
effect  of  it  is  to  put  him  in  a  situation  to  render  greater 
service  to  the  community,  and  to  exact  from  it  a  greater 
remuneration.  Every  circumstance  which  retards  or  in- 
terrupts production  gives  pain  to  the  producer,  for  the 
immediate  effect  of  it  is  to  circumscribe  his  services,  and 
consequently  his  remuneration.  Immediate  good  or  ill 
circumstances — fortunate  or  unfortunate — necessarily  fall 
upon  the  producer,  and  leave  him  no  choice  but  to  accept 
the  one  and  eschew  the  other. 

In  the  same  way,  when  a  workman  succeeds  in  dis- 
covering an  improved  process  in  manufactures,  the  im- 
mediate  profit  from  the  improvement  results  to  him.  This 
was  necessary  in  order  to  give  his  labour  an  intelligent 
direction ;  and  it  is  just,  because  it  is  fair  that  an  effort 
crowned  with  success  should  carry  its  recompense  along 
with  it. 

But  I  maintain  that  these  good  or  bad  effects,  though 
in  their  own  nature  permanent,  are  not  permanent  as 
regards  the  producer.  If  it  had  been  so,  a  principle  of 
progressive,  and  therefore  of  indefinite,  inequality  would 
have  been  introduced  among  men,  and  this  is  the  reason 
why  these  good  or  evil  effects  become  very  soon  absorbed 
in  the  general  destinies  of  the  human  race. 

How  is  this  brought  about?  I  shall  show  how  it 
takes  place  by  some  examples. 

Let  us  go  back  to  the  thirteenth  century.  The  men 
who  then  devoted  themselves  to  the  art  of  copying  re- 
ceived for  the  service  which  they  rendered  a  remuneration 
regulated  by  the  general  rate  of  profits.  Among  them 
there  arose  one  who  discovered  the  means  of  multiplying 
copies  of  the  same  work  rapidly.    He  invented  printing. 

In  the  first  instance,  one  man  was  enriched,  and  many 
others  were  impoverished.     At  first  sight,   marvellous  as 


40  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

the  invention  proves  itself  to  be,  we  hesitate  to  decide 
whether  it  is  hurtful  or  useful.  It  seems  to  introduce 
into  the  world,  as  I  have  said,  an  indefinite  element  of 
inequality.  Gutenberg  profits  by  his  invention,  and 
extends  his  invention  w4th  its  profits  indefinitely,  until 
he  has  ruined  all  the  copyists.  As  regards  the  public, 
in  the  capacity  of  consumer,  it  gains  little ;  for  Gutenberg 
takes  care  not  to  lower  the  price  of  his  books,  but  just 
enough  to  undersell  his  rivals. 

But  the  intelligence  which  has  introduced  harmony 
into  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies  has  implanted 
it  also  in  the  internal  mechanism  of  society.  We  shall 
see  the  economic  advantages  of  the  invention  when  it 
has  ceased  to  be  individual  property,  and  has  become  for 
ever  the  common  patrimony  of  the  masses. 

At  length  the  invention  comes  to  be  known.  Guten- 
berg is  no  longer  the  only  printer;  others  imitate  him. 
Their  profits  at  first  are  large.  They  are  thus  rewarded 
for  having  been  the  first  to  imitate  the  invention ;  and  it 
is  right  that  it  should  be  so,  for  this  higher  remuneration 
w^as  necessary  to  induce  them  to  concur  in  the  grand 
definite  result  which  is  approaching.  They  gain  a  great 
deal,  but  they  gain  less  than  the  inventor,  for  competition 
now  begins  its  work.  The  price  of  books  goes  on  falling. 
The  profit  of  imitators  goes  on  diminishing  in  proportion 
as  the  invention  becomes  of  older  date;  that  is  to  say,  in 
proportion  as  the  imitation  becomes  less  meritorious.  .  .  . 
The  new  branch  of  industry  at  length  reaches  its  normal 
state ;  in  other  words,  the  remuneration  of  printers  ceases 
to  be  exceptionally  high,  and  comes,  like  that  of  the 
copyist,  to  be  regulated  by  the  ordinary  rate  of  profits. 
Here  we  have  production,  as  such,  brought  back  to  the 
point  from  which  it  started.  And  yet  the  invention  is 
not  the  less  an  acquisition ;  the  saving  of  time,  of  labour, 
of  effort  to  produce  a  given  result,  that  is,  to  produce  a 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  41 

determinate  number  of  copies  is  not  the  less  realised. 
But  how  does  it  show  itself?  In  the  cheapness  of  books. 
And  to  whose  profit?  To  the  profit  of  the  consumer, 
of  society,  of  the  human  race.  The  printers,  who  have 
thenceforth  no  exceptional  merit,  no  longer  receive  ex- 
ceptional remuneration.  As  men,  as  consumers,  they 
undoubtedly  participate  in  the  advantages  which  the 
invention  has  conferred  upon  the  community.  But  that 
is  all.  As  printers,  as  producers,  they  have  returned  to 
the  ordinary  condition  of  the  other  producers  of  the 
country.  Society  pays  them  for  their  labour,  and  not  for 
the  utility  of  the  invention.  The  latter  has  become  the 
common  and  gratuitous  heritage  of  mankind  at  large. 

I  confess  that  the  wisdom  and  the  beauty  of  these 
laws  call  forth  my  admiration  and  respect.  I  see  in  them 
Saint-Simonianism  :  To  each  according  to  his  capacity ; 
to  each  capacity  according  to  its  works.  I  see  in  them 
communism ;  that  is,  the  tendency  of  products  to  become 
the  common  heritage  of  men ;  but  a  Saint-Simonianism, 
a  communism,  regulated  by  infinite  prescience,  and  not 
abandoned  to  the  frailties,  the  passions,  and  the  arbitrary 
will  of  men. 

What  I  have  said  of  the  art  of  printing  may  be 
affirmed  of  all  the  instruments  of  labour,  from  the  nail 
and  the  hammer  to  the  locomotive  and  the  electric  tele- 
graph. Society  becomes  possessed  of  all  through  its 
more  abundant  consumption,  and  it  enjoys  all  gratuit- 
ously, for  the  effect  of  inventions  and  discoveries  is  to 
reduce  the  price  of  commodities;  and  all  that  part  of  the 
price  which  has  been  annihilated,  and  which  represents 
the  share  invention  has  in  production  evidently  renders 
the  product  gratuitous  to  that  extent.  All  that  remains 
to  be  paid  for  is  the  human  labour,  the  immediate  labour, 
and  it  is  paid  for  without  reference  to  the  result  of  the 
invention,  at  least  when  that  invention  has  passed  through 


42  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

the  cycle  I  have  just  described — the  cycle  which  it  is 
designed  to  pass  through.  I  send  for  a  workman  to  my 
house;  he  comes  and  brings  his  saw  with  him.  I  pay 
him  two  shillings  for  his  day's  work,  and  he  saws  me 
twenty-five  boards.  Had  the  saw  not  been  invented,  he 
would  probably  not  have  been  able  to  furnish  me  with 
one,  and  I  should  have  had  to  pay  him  the  same  wages 
for  his  day's  work.  The  utility  produced  by  the  saw  is 
then,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  a  gratuitous  gift  of 
nature,  or,  rather,  it  is  a  jpart  of  that  inheritance  which, 
in  common  with  all  my  brethren,  I  have  received  from 
my  ancestors.  I  have  two  workmen  in  my  field.  The 
one  handles  the  plough,  the  other  the  spade.  The  result 
of  their  labour  is  very  different,  but  the  day's  wages 
are  the  same,  because  the  remuneration  is  not  propor- 
tioned to  the  utility  produced,  but  to  the  effort,  the 
labour,  which  is  exacted. 

I  entreat  the  reader's  patience,  and  beg  him  to  believe 
that  I  have  not  lost  sight  of  Free  Trade.  Let  him  only 
have  the  goodness  to  remember  the  conclusion  at  which 
I  have  arrived :  Rem,uneration  is  not  in  proportion  to 
the  utilities  which  the  producer  brings  to  market,  hut  to 
his  labour^ 

I  have  drawn  my  illustrations  as  yet  from  human 
inventions.  Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  natural 
advantages. 

In  every  branch  of  production  nature  and  man  concur. 
But  the  portion  of  utility  which  nature  contributes  is 
always  gratuitous.  It  is  only  the  portion  of  utility  which 
human  labour  contributes  which  forms  the  subject  of 
exchange,  and,  consequently,  of  remuneration.  The 
latter  varies,   no  doubt,   very  much  in  proportion  to  the 

*  It  is  true  that  labour  does  not  receive  a  uniform  remuneration.  It 
may  be  more  or  less  intense,  dangerous,  skilled,  etc.  Competition  settles 
the  usual  or  current  price  in  each  department — and  this  is  the  fluctuating 
price  of  which  I  speak. 


CONDITIONS    OF    PRODUCTION  43 

intensity  of  the  labour,  its  skill,  its  promptitude,  its 
suitableness,  the  need  there  is  of  it,  the  temporary  absence 
of  rivalry,  etc.  But  it  is  not  the  less  true,  in  principle, 
that  the  concurrence  of  natural  laws,  which  are  common 
to  all,  counts  for  nothing  in  the  price  of  the  product. 

We  do  not  pay  for  the  air  we  breathe,  although  it 
is  so  useful  to  us  that,  without  it,  we  could  not  live  two 
minutes.  We  do  not  pay  for  it,  nevertheless,  because 
nature  furnishes  it  to  us  without  the  aid  of  human  labour. 
But  if,  for  example,  we  should  desire  to  separate  one  of 
the  gases  of  which  it  is  composed,  to  make  an  experiment, 
we  must  make  an  exertion ;  or  if  we  wish  another  to 
make  that  exertion  for  us  we  must  sacrifice  for  that  other 
an  equivalent  amount  of  exertion,  although  we  may  have 
embodied  it  in  another  product.  Whence  we  see  that 
pains,  efforts,  and  exertions  are  the  real  subjects  of 
exchange.  It  is  not,  indeed,  the  oxygen  gas  that  I  pay 
for,  since  it  is  at  my  disposal  everywhere,  but  the  labour 
necessary  to  disengage  it,  labour  which  has  been  saved 
me,  and  which  must  be  recompensed.  Will  it  be  said 
that  there  is  something  else  to  be  paid  for,  materials, 
apparatus,  etc.  ?  Still,  in  paying  for  these  I  pay  for 
labour.  The  price  of  the  coal  employed,  for  example, 
represents  the  labour  necessary  to  extract  it  from  the 
mine  and  to  transport  it  to  the  place  where  it  is  to 
be  used. 

We  do  not  pay  for  the  light  of  the  sun,  because  it 
is  a  gift  of  nature.  But  we  pay  for  gas,  tallow,  oil,  wax, 
because  there  is  here  human  labour  to  be  remunerated; 
and  it  will  be  remarked  that,  in  this  case,  the  remuneration 
is  proportioned,  not  to  the  utility  produced,  but  to  the 
labour  employed,  so  much  so,  that  it  may  happen  that 
one  of  these  kinds  of  artificial  light,  though  more  intense, 
costs  us  less,  and  for  this  reason  that  the  same  amount 
of  human  labour  affords  us  more  of  it* 


44  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

Were  the  porter  who  carries  water  to  my  house  to 
be  paid  in  proportion  to  the  absolute  utility  of  water, 
my  whole  fortune  would  be  insufficient  to  remunerate 
him.  But  I  pay  him  in  proportion  to  the  exertion  he 
makes.  If  he  charges  more,  others  will  do  the  work,  or, 
if  necessary,  I  will  do  it  myself.  Water,  in  truth,  is 
not  the  subject  of  our  bargain,  but  the  labour  of  carrying 
it.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  so  important,  and  the 
conclusions  which  I  am  about  to  deduce  from  it  throw 
so  much  light  on  the  question  of  the  freedom  of  inter- 
national exchanges,  that  I  deem  it  necessary  to  elucidate 
it  by  other  examples. 

The  alimentary  substance  contained  in  potatoes  is  not 
very  costly,  because  we  can  obtain  a  large  amount  of  it 
with  comparatively  little  labour.  We  pay  more  for  wheat, 
because  the  production  of  it  costs  a  greater  amount  of 
human  labour.  It  is  evident  that  if  nature  did  for  the 
one  what  it  does  for  the  other,  the  price  of  both  would 
tend  to  equality.  It  is  impossible  that  the  producer  of 
rwheat  should  permanently  gain  much  more  than  the 
producer  of  potatoes.  The  law  of  competition  would 
prevent  it. 

If  by  happy  miracle  the  fertility  of  all  arable  lands 
should  come  to  be  augmented,  it  would  not  be  the 
agriculturist  but  the  consumer  who  would  reap  advantage 
from  that  phenomenon,  for  it  would  resolve  itself  into 
abundance  and  cheapness.  There  would  be  less  labour 
incorporated  in  each  quarter  of  corn,  and  the  cultivator 
could  exchange  it  only  for  a  smaller  amount  of  labour 
worked  up  in  some  other  product.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  fertility  of  the  soil  came  all  at  once  to  be  diminished, 
nature's  part  in  the  process  of  production  would  be  less, 
that  of  human  labour  would  be  greater,  and  the  product 
dearer.  I  am,  then,  warranted  in  saying  that  it  is  in 
consumption,  in  the  human  element,  that  all  the  economic 


CONDITIONS   OF   PRODUCTION  45 

phenomena  come  ultimately  to  resolve  themselves.  The 
man  who  has  failed  to  regard  them  in  this  light,  to 
follow  them  out  to  their  ultimate  effects,  withoiit  stopping 
short  at  immediate  results,  and  viewing  them  from  the 
producer's  standpoint,  can  no  more  be  regarded  as  an 
economist  than  the  man  who  should  prescribe  a  draught, 
and,  instead  of  watching  its  effect  on  the  entire  system 
of  the  patient,  should  inquire  only  how  it  affected  the 
mouth  and  throat,  could  be  regarded  as  a  physician. 

Tropical  regions  are  very  favourably  situated  for  the 
production  of  sugar  and  of  coffee.  This  means  that  nature 
does  a  great  part  of  the  work,  and  leaves  little  for  human 
labour  to  do.  But  who  reaps  the  advantage  of  this 
liberality  of  nature  ?  Not  the  producing  countries,  for 
competition  causes  the  price  barely  to  remunerate  the 
labour.  It  is  the  human  race  that  reaps  the  benefit,  for 
the  result  of  nature's  liberality  is  cheapness,  and  cheap- 
ness benefits  everybody. 

Suppose  a  temperate  region  where  coal  and  iron-ore 
are  found  on  the  surface  of  the  ground,  where  one  has 
only  to  stoop  down  to  get  them.  That,  in  the  first 
instance,  the  inhabitants  would  profit  by  this  happy 
circumstance  I  allow.  But  competition  would  soon  in- 
tervene, and  the  price  of  coal  and  iron-ore  would  go  on 
falling,  till  the  gift  of  nature  became  free  to  all,  and  then 
the  human  labour  employed  would  be  alone  remunerated 
according  to  the  general  rate  of  earnings. 

Thus,  the  liberality  of  nature,  like  improvements  in 
the  processes  of  production,  is,  or  continually  tends  to 
become,  under  the  law  of  com4Detition,  the  common  and 
gratuitous  patrimony  of  consumers,  of  the  masses,  of 
mankind  in  general.  Then,  the  countries  which  do  not 
possess  these  advantages  have  everything  to  gain  by 
exchanging  their  products  with  those  countries  which 
possess  them,  because  the  subject  of  exchange  is  labour, 


46  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

apart  from  the  consideration  of  the  natural  utilities  worked 
up  with  that  labour;  and  the  countries  which  have  in- 
corporated in  a  given  amount  of  their  labour  the  greatest 
amount  of  these  natural  utilities,  aire  evidently  the  most 
favoured  countries.  Their  products,  which  represent  the 
least  amount  of  human  labour,  are  the  least  profitable; 
in  other  words,  they  are  cheaper;  and  if  the  whole 
liberality  of  nature  resolves  itself  into  cheapness,  it  is 
evidently  not  the  producing  but  the  consuming  country 
which  reaps  the  benefit. 

Hence  we  see  the  enormous  absurdity  of  consuming 
countries  which  reject  products  for  the  very  reason  that 
they  are  cheap.  It  is  as  if  they  said,  '*  We  want  nothing 
that  nature  gives  us.  You  ask  me  for  an  effort  equal  to 
two  in  exchange  for  a  product  which  I  cannot  create 
without  an  effort  equal  to  four ;  you  can  make  that  effort, 
because  in  your  case  nature  does  half  the  work.  Be  it 
so,  I  reject  your  offer,  and  I  shall  wait  until  your 
climate,  having  become  more  inclement,  will  force  you 
to  demand  from  me  an  effort  equal  to  four,  in  order  that 
I  may  treat  with  you  on  a  footing  of  equality.'* 

A  is  a  favoured  country.  B  is  a  country  to  which 
nature  has  been  less  bountiful.  I  maintain  that  ex- 
change benefits  both,  but  benefits  B  especially;  because 
exchange  is  not  an  exchange  of  utilities  for  utilities,  but 
of  value  for  value.  Now  A  includes  a  greater  amount  of 
utility  in  the  same  value,  seeing  that  the  utility  of  a 
product  includes  what  nature  has  put  there  as  well  as 
what  labour  has  put  there;  whilst  value  includes  only 
what  labour  has  put  there.  Then  B  makes  quite  an 
advantageous  bargain.  In  recompensing  the  producer 
of  A  for  his  labour  only  it  receives  into  the  bargain  a 
greater  amount  of  natural  utility  than  it  has  given. 

This    enables    us    to    lay    down    the    general    rule  : 
Exchange  is  a  barter  of  values;  value  under  the  action 


CONDITIONS   OF    PRODUCTION  47 

of  competition  being  made  to  represent  labour,  exchange 
becomes  a  barter  of  equal  labour.  What  nature  has 
imparted  to  the  products  exchanged  is  on  both  sides 
given  gratuitously  and  into  the  bargain;  whence  it  follows 
necessarily  that  exchanges  effected  with  countries  the 
most  favoured  by  nature  are  the  most  advantageous. 

The  theory  of  which  in  this  chapter  I  have  endeavoured 
to  trace  the  outlines  would  require  great  developments. 
I  have  glanced  at  it  only  in  as  far  as  it  bears  upon  my 
subject  of  Free  Trade.  But  perhaps  the  attentive  reader 
may  have  perceived  in  it  the  fertile  germ  which  in  the 
rankness  of  its  maturity  will  not  only  smother  Protection, 
but  along  with  it  Fourierisme,  SaintSimonianisme,  com- 
munisme,  and  all  those  schools  whose  object  it  is  to 
exclude  from  the  government  of  the  world  the  law  of 
COMPETITION.  Regarded  from  the  producer's  point  of 
view,  competition  no  doubt  frequently  clashes  with  our 
immediate  and  individual  interests;  but  if  we  change  our 
point  of  view  and  extend  our  regards  to  industry  in 
general,  to  universal  prosperity — in  a  word,  to  consump- 
tion— we  shall  find  that  competition  in  the  moral  world 
plays  the  same  part  which  equilibrium  does  in  the  material 
world.  It  lies  at  the  root  of  true  communism,  of  true 
socialism,  of  that  equality  of  conditions  and  of  happiness 
so  much  desired  in  our  day;  and  if  so  many  sincere 
publicists  and  well-meaning  reformers  seek  after  the 
arbitrary,  it  is  for  this  reason— that  they  do  not  under- 
stand liberty. 


CHAPTER    V 

OUR    PRODUCTS    ARE    BURDENED    WITH    TAXES 

We  have  here,  again,  the  same  fallacy.  We  demand 
that  foreign  products  should  be  taxed  to  neutralise  the 
effect  of  the  taxes  which  weigh  upon  our  national  pro- 
ducts. The  object,  then,  still  is  to  equalise  the  conditions 
of  production.  We  have  only  a  word  to  say,  and  it  is 
this  :  That  the  tax  is  an  artificial  obstacle  which  produces 
exactly  the  same  result  as  a  natural  obstacle,  its  effect 
is  to  enhance  prices.  If  this  enhancement  reach  a  point 
which  makes  it  a  greater  loss  to  create  the  product  for 
ourselves  than  to  procure  it  from  abroad  by  producing 
a  counter  value,  let  well  alone.  Of  two  evils,  private 
interest  will  do  well  to  choose  the  least.  I  might  then 
simply  refer  the  reader  to  the  preceding  demonstration ; 
but  the  fallacy  which  we  have  here  to  combat  recurs  so 
frequently  in  the  lamentations  and  demands — I  might  say 
in  the  challenges — of  the  protectionist  school  as  to  merit 
a  special  discussion. 

If  the  question  relate  to  one  of  those  exceptional  taxes 
which  are  imposed  on  certain  products,  I  grant  readily 
that  it  is  reasonable  to  impose  the  same  duty  on  the 
foreign  product.  For  example,  it  would  be  absurd  to 
exempt  foreign  salt  from  duty ;  not  that,  in  an  economical 
point  of  view,  France  would  lose  anything  by  doing  so, 
but  the  reverse.  Let  them  say  what  they  will,  principles 
are  always  the  same;  and  France  would  gain  by  the 
exemption  as  she  must  always  gain  by  removing  a  natural 
or  artificial  obstacle.  But  in  this  instance  the  obstacle 
has  been  interposed  for  purposes  of  revenue.    These  pur- 


THE    BURDEN    OF    TAXES  49 

poses  must  be  attained;  and  were  foreign  salt  sold  in 
our  market  duty  free,  the  Treasury  would  lose  its  hundred 
millions  of  francs  (four  millions  sterling),  and  must  raise 
that  sum  from  some  other  source.  There  would  be  an 
obvious  inconsistency  in  creating  an  obstacle,  and  failing 
in  the  object.  It  might  have  been  better  to  have  had 
recourse  at  first  to  another  tax  than  that  upon  French 
salt.  But  I  admit  that  there  are  certain  circumstances 
in  which  a  tax  may  be  laid  on  foreign  commodities,  pro- 
vided it  is  not  protective,  but  fiscal. 

But  to  pretend  that  a  nation,  because  she  is  sub- 
jected to  heavier  taxes  than  her  neighbours,  should 
protect  herself  by  tariffs  against  the  competition  of  her 
rivals,  in  this  is  a  fallacy,  and  it  is  this  fallacy  which 
I   intend  to  attack. 

I  have  said  more  than  once  that  I  propose  only  to 
explain  the  theory,  and  lay  open,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
sources  of  protectionist  errors.  Had  I  intended  to  raise 
a  controversy,  I  should  have  asked  the  protectionists 
why  they  direct  their  tariffs  chiefly  against  England  and 
Belgium,  the  most  heavily  taxed  countries  in  the  world? 
Am  I  not  warranted  in  regarding  their  argument  only 
as  a  pretext  ?  But  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  believe 
that  men  are  prohibitionists  from  self-interest,  and  not 
from  conviction.  The  doctrine  of  protection  is  too 
popular  not  to  be  sincere.  If  the  majority  had  faith  in 
liberty,  we  should  be  free.  Undoubtedly  it  is  self-interest 
which  makes  our  tariffs  so  heavy;  but  conviction  is  at 
the  root  of  it.  "  The  will,"  says  Pascal,  "  is  one  of  the 
principal  organs  of  belief."  But  the  belief  exists  never- 
theless, although  it  has  its  root  in  the  will,  and  in  the 
insidious  suggestions  of  selfishness. 

Let  us  revert  to  the  fallacy  founded  on  taxation. 

The  State  may  make  a  good  or  a  bad  use  of  the  taxes 
which  it  levies.     When  it  renders  to  the  public  services 


50  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

which  are  equivalent  to  the  value  it  receives,  it  makes  a 
good  use  of  them.  And  when  it  dissipates  its  revenues 
without  giving  any  service  in  return,  it  makes  a  bad  use 
of  them. 

In  the  first  case,  to  affirm  that  the  taxes  place  the 
country  which  pays  them  under  conditions  of  production 
more  unfavourable  than  those  of  a  country  which  is 
exempt  from  them,  is  a  fallacy.  We  pay  twenty  millions 
of  francs  for  justice  and  police;  but  then  we  have  them, 
with  the  security  they  afford  us,  and  the  time  which  they 
save  us ;  and  it  is  very  probable  that  production  is  neither 
more  easy  nor  more  active  in  those  countries,  if  there  are 
any  such,  where  the  people  take  the  business  of  justice 
and  police  into  their  own  hands.  We  pay  many  hundreds 
of  millions  of  francs  for  roads,  bridges,  harbours,  and 
railways.  Granted ;  but  then  we  have  the  benefit  of  these 
roads,  bridges,  harbours,  and  railways;  and  whether  we 
make  a  good  or  a  bad  bargain  in  constructing  them,  it 
cannot  be  said  that  they  render  us  inferior  to  other  nations, 
who  do  not  indeed  support  a  budget  of  public  works,  but 
who  have  no  public  works.  And  this  explains  why,  whilst 
accusing  taxation  of  being  a  cause  of  industrial  inferiority, 
we  direct  our  tariffs  especially  against  those  countries 
which  are  the  most  heavily  taxed.  Their  taxes,  well  em- 
ployed, far  from  deteriorating,  have  ameliorated,  the  con- 
ditions of  production  in  these  countries.  Thus  we  are 
continually  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  protectionist 
fallacies  are  not  only  not  true,  but  are  the  very  reverse 
of  true.* 

If  taxes  are  unproductive,  suppress  them,  if  you  can ; 
but  assuredly  the  strangest  mode  of  neutralising  their  effect 
is  to  add  individual  to  public  taxes.  Fine  compensation 
truly  !  You  tell  us  that  the  State  taxes  are  too  much ;  and 
you  give  that  as  a  reason  why  we  should  tax  one  another  I 

*  See  Harmonies  Economiques,  ch.  xvii. — French  Editor. 


THE    BURDEN    OF    TAXES  51 

A  protective  duty  is  a  tax  directed  against  a  foreign 
product ;  but  we  must  never  forget  that  it  falls  back  on  the 
home  consumer.  Now  the  consumer  is  the  tax-payer. 
The  agreeable  language  you  address  to  him  is  this  :  "  Be- 
cause your  taxes  are  heavy,  we  raise  the  price  of  every- 
thing you  buy;  because  the  State  lays  hold  of  one  part 
of  your  income,  we  hand  over  another  to  the  monopolist." 

But  let  us  penetrate  a  little  deeper  into  this  fallacy 
which  is  in  such  repute  with  our  legislators,  although  the 
extraordinary  thing  is  that  it  is  just  the  very  people  who 
maintain  unproductive  taxes  who  attribute  to  them  our 
industrial  inferiority,  and  in  that  inferiority  find  an  excuse 
for  imposing  other  taxes  and  restrictions. 

It  appears  evident  to  me  that  the  nature  and  eifects  of 
protection  would  not  be  changed,  were  the  State  to  levy 
a  direct  tax  and  distribute  the  money  afterwards  in 
premiums  and  indemnities  to  the  privileged  branches  of 
industry. 

Suppose  that  while  foreign  iron  cannot  be  sold  in  our 
market  below  eight  francs,  French  iron  cannot  be  sold 
for  less  than  twelve  francs. 

On  this  hypothesis,  there  are  two  modes  in  which  the 
State  can  secure  the  home  market  to  the  producer. 

The  first  mode  is  to  lay  a  duty  of  five  francs  on  foreign 
iron.  It  is  evident  that  that  duty  would  exclude  it,  since 
it  could  no  longer  be  sold  under  thirteen  francs,  namely, 
eight  francs  for  the  cost  price  and  five  francs  for  the  tax, 
and  at  that  price  it  would  be  driven  out  of  the  market  by 
French  iron,  the  price  of  which  we  suppose  to  be  only 
twelve  francs.  In  this  case,  the  purchaser,  the  consumer, 
would  be  at  the  whole  cost  of  the  protection. 

Or  again,  the  State  might  levy  a  tax  of  five  francs  from 
the  public,  and  give  the  proceeds  as  a  premium  to  the  iron- 
master. The  protective  effect  would  be  the  same.  Foreign 
iron  would  in  this  case  be  equally  excluded;  for  our  iron- 


52  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

master  can  now  sell  his  iron  at  seven  francs,  which,  with 
the  five  francs  premium,  would  make  up  to  him  the 
remunerative  price  of  twelve  francs.  But  with  home 
iron  at  seven  francs,  the  foreigner  could  not  sell  his 
for  eight,  which  by  the  supposition  is  his  lowest  re- 
munerative price. 

Between  these  two  modes  of  going  to  work,  I  can 
see  only  one  difference.  The  principle  is  the  same;  the 
effect  is  the  same;  but  in  the  one,  certain  individuals 
pay  the  price  of  protection ;  in  the  other,  it  is  paid  for  by 
the  nation  at  large. 

I  frankly  avow  my  predilection  for  the  second  mode. 
It  appears  to  me  more  just,  more  economical,  and  more 
honourable;  more  just,  because  if  society  desires  to  give 
largesses  to  some  of  its  members,  all  should  contribute; 
more  economical,  because  it  would  save  much  expense  in 
collecting,  and  get  us  rid  of  many  restrictions;  more 
honourable,  because  the  public  would  then  see  clearly  the 
nature  of  the  operation,  and  act  accordingly. 

But  if  the  protectionist  system  had  taken  this  form,  it 
would  have  been  laughable  to  hear  men  say  :  "  We  pay 
heavy  taxes  for  the  army,  for  the  navy,  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice,  for  public  works,  for  the  university,  the 
public  debt,  etc. — in  all  exceeding  a  milliard  (;i'40,ooo,ooo 
sterling).  For  this  reason,  the  State  should  take  another 
milliard  from  us  to  relieve  these  poor  ironmasters,  these 
poor  shareholders  in  the  coal-mines  of  Anzin,  these  un- 
fortunate proprietors  of  forests,  these  useful  men  who 
supply  us  with  cod-fish." 

Look  at  the  subject  closely,  and  you  will  be  satisfied 
that  this  is  the  true  meaning  and  effect  of  the  fallacy  we 
are  combating.  It  is  all  in  vain ;  you  cannot  give  money 
to  some  members  of  the  community  but  by  taking  it  from 
others.  If  you  desire  to  ruin  the  tax-payer,  you  may  do 
so.     But  at  least  do  not  banter  him  by  saying  :  "In  order 


THE    BURDEN    OF    TAXES  53 

to  compensate  your  losses,  I  take  from  you  again  as  much 
as  I  have  taken  from  you  already." 

To  expose  fully  all  that  is  false  in  this  fallacy  would 
be  an  endless  work.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  three 
observations. 

You  assert  that  the  country  is  overburdened  with  taxes, 
and  on  this  fact  you  found  an  argument  for  the  protection 
of  certain  branches  of  industry.  But  we  have  to  pay  these 
taxes  in  spite  of  protection.  If,  then,  a  particular  branch 
of  industry  presents  itself,  and  says,  "  I  share  in  the  pay- 
ment of  taxes;  that  raises  the  cost  price  of  my  products, 
and  I  demand  that  a  protecting  duty  should  also  raise  their 
selling  price,"  what  does  such  a  demand  amount  to?  It 
amounts  simply  to  this,  that  the  tax  should  be  thrown  over 
on  the  rest  of  the  community.  The  object  sought  for  is 
to  be  reimbursed  the  amount  of  the  tax  by  a  rise  of  prices. 
But  as  the  Treasury  requires  to  have  the  full  amount  of 
all  the  taxes,  and  as  the  masses  have  to  pay  the  higher 
price,  it  follows  that  they  have  to  bear  not  only  their  own 
share  of  taxation  but  that  of  the  particular  branch  of  in- 
dustry which  is  protected.  But  we  mean  to  protect  every- 
body, you  will  say.  I  answer,  in  the  first  place,  that 
that  is  impossible;  and,  in  the  next  place,  that  if  it  were 
possible,  there  would  be  no  relief.  I  would  pay  for  you, 
and  you  would  pay  for  me;  but  the  tax  must  be  paid 
all  the  same. 

You  are  thus  the  dupes  of  an  illusion.  You  wish  in 
the  first  instance  to  pay  taxes  in  order  that  you  may  have 
an  army,  a  navy,  a  church,  a  university,  judges,  highways, 
etc.,  and  then  you  wish  to  free  from  taxation  first  one 
branch  of  industry,  then  a  second,  then  a  third,  always 
throwing  back  the  burden  upon  the  masses.  You  do 
nothing  more  than  create  interminable  complications,  with- 
out any  other  result  than  these  complications  themselves. 
Show  me  that  a  rise  of  price  caused  by  protection  falls  upon 


54  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

the  foreigner,  and  I  could  discover  in  your  argument  some- 
thing specious.  But  if  it  be  true  that  the  public  pays  the 
tax  before  your  law,  and  that  after  the  law  is  passed  it 
pays  for  protection  and  the  tax  into  the  bargain,  truly 
I  cannot  see  what  is  gained  by  it. 

But  I  go  further,  and  maintain  that  the  heavier  our 
taxes  are,  the  more  we  should  hasten  to  throw  open  our 
ports  and  our  frontiers  to  foreigners  less  heavily  taxed 
than  ourselves.  And  why  ?  In  order  to  throw  back  upon 
them  a  greater  share  of  our  burden.  Is  it  not  an  incon- 
testable axiom  in  political  economy  that  taxes  ultimately 
fall  on  the  consumer?  The  more,  then,  our  exchanges  are 
multiplied,  the  more  will  foreign  consumers  reimburse  us 
for  the  taxes  incorporated  and  worked  up  in  the  products 
we  sell  them ;  whilst  we  in  this  respect  will  have  to  make 
them  a  smaller  restitution,  seeing  that  their  products, 
according  to  our  hypothesis,  are  less  heavily  burdened 
than  ours. 

In  fine,  have  you  never  asked  yourselves  whether  these 
heavy  burdens  on  which  you  found  your  argument  for  a 
prohibitory  system  are  not  caused  By  that  very  system  ? 
If  commerce  were  free,  what  use  would  you  have  for  your 
great  standing  armies  and  powerful  navies  ?  .  .  .  But 
this  belongs  to  the  domain  of  politics." 

Et  ne  confondons  pas,  pour  trop  approfondir, 
Leurs   aflFaires   avec   les   notres. 


^  See  Peace  and  Liberty,  Bastiat's  Collected  Works,  vol.  v.,  p.  407.- 
French  Editor. 


CHAPTER     VI 

BALANCE  OF  TRADE 

Our  adversaries  have  adopted  tactics  which  are  rather 
embarrassing.  Do  we  estabHsh  our  doctrine  ?  They 
admit  it  with  the  greatest  possible  respect.  Do  we  attack 
their  principle  ?  They  abandon  it  with  the  best  grace  in 
the  world.  They  demand  only  one  thing — that  our 
doctrine,  which  they  hold  to  be  true,  should  remain  rele- 
gated to  books,  and  that  their  principle,  which  they 
acknowledge  to  be  vicious,  should  reign  paramount  in 
practical  legislation.  Resign  to  them  the  management  of 
tariffs,  and  they  will  give  up  all  dispute  with  you  in  the 
domain  of  theory. 

"Assuredly,"  said  M.  Gauthier  de  Rumilly,  on  a  recent 
Occasion,  "no  one  wishes  to  resuscitate  the  antiquated 
theories  of  the  balance  of  trade.'*  Very  right.  Monsieur 
Gauthier,  but  please  to  remember  that  it  is  not  enough  to 
give  a  passing  slap  to  error,  and  immediately  afterwards, 
and  for  two  hours  together,  reason  as  if  that  error  were 
truth. 

Let  me  speak  of  M.  Lestiboudois.  Here  we  have  a 
consistent  reasoner,  a  logical  disputant.  There  is  nothing 
in  his  conclusions  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  his  premises. 
He  asks  nothing  in  practice  but  what  he  justifies  in  theory. 
His  principle  may  be  false ;  that  is  open  to  question.  But,  at 
any  rate,  he  has  a  principle.  He  believes,  and  he  proclaims 
it  aloud,  that  if  France  gives  ten,  in  order  to  receive  fifteen, 
she  loses  five;  and  it  follows,  of  course,  that  he  supports 
laws  which  are  in  keeping  with  this  view  of  the  subject. 

"The  important  thing  to  attend  to,"  he  says,  "is  that 
the  amount  of  our  importations  goes  on  augmenting,  and 

55 


56  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

exceeds  the  amount  of  our  exportations — that  is  to  say, 
France  every  year  purchases  more  foreign  products,  and 
sells  less  of  her  own.  Figures  prove  this.  What  do  we 
see?  In  1842  imports  exceeded  exports  by  200  millions. 
These  facts  appear  to  prove  in  the  clearest  manner  that 
national  industry  is  not  sufficiently  protected,  that  we 
depend  upon  foreign  labour  for  our  supplies,  that  the 
competition  of  our  rivals  oppresses  our  industry.  The 
present  law  appears  to  me  to  recognise  the  fact  that  the 
economists  are  wrong  in  saying  that  when  we  purchase 
we  necessarily  sell  a  corresponding  amount  of  commodities. 
It  is  evident  that  we  can  purchase,  not  with  our  usual 
products,  not  with  our  revenue,  not  with  the  results  of 
permanent  labour,  but  with  our  capital,  with  products 
which  have  been  accumulated  and  stored  up,  those  in- 
tended for  reproduction — that  is  to  say,  that  we  may 
expend,  that  we  may  dissipate,  the  proceeds  of  previous 
economies,  that  we  may  impoverish  ourselves,  that  we 
may  proceed  on  the  road  to  ruin,  and  consume  entirely 
the  national  capital.  This  is  exactly  what  we  are  doing. 
Every  year  we  give  away  200  millions  of  francs  to  the 
foreigner." 

Well,  here  is  a  man  with  whom  we  can  come  to  an 
understanding.  There  is  no  hypocrisy  in  this  language. 
The  doctrine  of  the  balance  of  trade  is  openly  avowed. 
France  imports  200  millions  more  than  she  exports.  Then 
we  lose  200  millions  a  year.  And  what  is  the  remedy? 
To  place  restrictions  on  importation.  The  conclusion  is 
unexceptionable. 

It  is  with  M.  Lestiboudois,  then,  that  we  must  deal,  for 
how  can  we  argue  with  M.  Gauthier?  If  you  tell  him  that 
the  balance  of  trade  is  an  error,  he  replies  that  that  was 
what  he  laid  down  at  the  beginning.  If  you  say  that  the 
balance  of  trade  is  a  truth,  he  will  reply  that  that  is  what 
he  proves  in  his  conclusions. 


BALANCE    OF   TRADE  57 

The  economist  school  will  blame  me,  no  doubt,  for 
arguing  with  M.  Lestiboudois.  To  attack  the  balance  of 
trade,   it  will  be  said,  is  to  fight  with  a  windmill. 

But  take  care.  The  doctrine  of  the  balance  of  trade  is 
neither  so  antiquated,  nor  so  sick,  nor  so  dead  as  M. 
Gauthier  would  represent  it,  for  the  entire  Chamber — 
M.  Gauthier  himself  included — has  recognised  by  its  votes 
the  theory  of  M.  Lestiboudois. 

I  shall  not  fatigue  the  reader  by  proceeding  to  probe 
that  theory,  but  content  myself  with  subjecting  it  to  the 
test  of  facts. 

We  are  constantly  told  that  our  principles  do  not  hold 
good,  except  in  theory.  But  tell  me,  gentlemen,  if  you 
regard  the  books  of  merchants  as  holding  good  in  practice  ? 
It  appears  to  me  that  if  there  is  anything  in  the  world 
which  should  have  practical  authority,  when  the  question 
regards  profit  and  loss,  it  is  commercial  accounts.  Have 
all  the  merchants  in  the  world  come  to  an  understanding 
for  centuries  to  keep  their  books  in  such  a  way  as  to 
represent  profits  as  losses,  and  losses  as  profits?  It  may 
be  so,  but  I  would  much  rather  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
M.  Lestiboudois  is  a  bad  economist. 

Now,  a  merchant  of  my  acquaintance  having  had 
two  transactions,  the  results  of  which  were  very  different, 
I  felt  curious  to  compare  the  books  of  the  counting-house 
with  the  books  of  the  Customhouse,  as  interpreted  by  M. 
Lestiboudois  to  the  satisfaction  of  our  six  hundred  legis- 
lators. 

M.  T.  despatched  a  ship  from  Havre  to  the  United 
States,  with  a  cargo  of  French  goods,  chiefly  those  known 
as  articles  de  PariSj  amounting  to  200,000  francs.  This 
was  the  figure  declared  at  the  Customhouse.  When  the 
cargo  arrived  at  New  Orleans  it  was  charged  with  10  per 
cent,  freight  and  30  per  cent,  duty,  making  a  total  of 
280,000  francs.     It  was  sold  with  20  per  cent,  profit*  or 


58  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

40,000  francs,  and  produced  a  total  of  320,000  francs, 
which  the  consignee  invested  in  cottons.  These  cottons 
had  still  for  freight,  insurance,  commission,  etc.,  to  bear 
a  cost  of  10  per  cent. ;  so  that  when  the  new  cargo  arrived 
at  Havre  it  had  cost  352,000  francs,  which  was  the  figure 
entered  in  the  Customhouse  books.  Finally  M.  T.  realised 
upon  this  return  cargo  20  per  cent,  profit,  or  70,400  francs; 
in  other  words,  the  cottons  were  sold  for  422,400  francs. 

If  M.  Lestiboudois  desires  it,  I  shall  send  him  an  ex- 
tract from  the  books  of  M.  T.  He  will  there  see  at  the 
credit  of  the  profit  and  loss  account — that  is  to  say,  as 
profits — two  entries,  one  of  40,000,  another  of  70,400 
francs,  and  M.  T.  is  very  sure  that  his  accounts  are 
accurate. 

And  yet,  what  do  the  Customhouse  books  tell  M. 
Lestiboudois  regarding  this  transaction  ?  They  tell  him 
simply  that  France  exported  200,000  francs'  worth,  and 
imported  to  the  extent  of  352,000  francs ;  whence  the 
honourable  deputy  concludes  "that  she  had  expended  and 
dissipated  the  profits  of  her  previous  economies,  that  she 
is  impoverishing  herself,  that  she  is  on  the  high  road  to 
ruin,  and  has  given  away  to  the  foreigner  152,000  francs 
of  her  capital/' 

Some  time  afterwards,  M.  T.  despatched  another  vessel 
with  a  cargo  also  of  the  value  of  200,000  francs,  composed 
of  the  products  of  our  native  industry.  This  unfortunate 
ship  was  lost  in  a  gale  of  wind  after  leaving  the  harbour, 
and  all  M.  T.  had  to  do  was  to  make  two  short  entries 
in  his  books,  to  this  effect : 

**  Sundry  goods  debtors  to  X,  200,000  francs,  for  pur- 
chases of  different  commodities  despatched  by  the  ship  N. 
"Profit   and    loss   debtors    to    sundry    goods,    200,000 
francs,  in  consequence  of  definitive  and  total  loss  of  th 
cargo." 

At  the  same  time,  the  Customhouse  books  bore  an  entry 


BALANCE    OF    TRADE  59 

of  200,cxx>  francs  in  the  list  of  exportations ;  and  as  there 
was  no  corresponding  entry  to  make  in  the  list  of  importa- 
tions,  it  follows  that  M.  Lestiboudois  and  the  Chamber  will 
see  in  this  shipwreck  a  clear  and  net  profit  for  France  of 
200,000  francs. 

There  is  still  another  inference  to  be  deduced  from  this, 
which  is,  that  according  to  the  theory  of  the  balance  of 
trade,  France  has  a  very  simple  means  of  doubling  her 
capital  at  any  moment.  It  is  enough  to  pass  them  through 
the  Customhouse,  and  then  pitch  them  into  the  sea.  In 
this  case  the  exports  will  represent  the  amount  of  her 
capital,  the  imports  will  be  nil,  and  even  impossible,  and 
we  shall  gain  all  that  the  sea  swallows  up. 

This  is  a  joke,  the  protectionists  will  say.  It  is  im- 
possible we  could  give  utterance  to  such  absurdities.  You 
do  give  utterance  to  them,  however,  and,  what  is  more, 
you  act  upon  them  and  impose  them  on  your  fellow-citizens 
to  the  utmost  of  your  power. 

The  truth  is,  it  would  be  necessary  to  take  the  balance 
of  trade  backwards  [au  rebours],  and  calculate  the  national 
profits  from  foreign  trade  by  the  excess  of  imports  over 
exports.  This  excess,  after  deducting  costs,  constitutes 
the  real  profit.  But  this  theory,  which  is  true,  leads 
directly  to  Free  Trade.  I  make  you  a  present  of  it, 
gentlemen,  as  I  do  of  all  the  theories  in  the  preceding 
chapters.  Exaggerate  it  as  much  as  you  please — it  has 
nothing  to  fear  from  that  test.  Suppose,  if  that  amuses 
you,  that  the  foreigner  inundates  us  with  all  sorts  of 
useful  commodities  without  asking  anything  in  return, 
that  our  imports  are  infinite  and  exports  m/,  I  defy  you 
to  prove  to  me  that  we  should  be  poorer  on  that  account. 

Bastiat  afterwards  rectified  the  preceding  demonstration  by 
excluding  from  his  calculation  the  cost  of  transport  and  the  duty. 
See  Balance  of  Commerce^  vol.  v.,  p.  902,  Collected  Works. — FRENCH 
Editor.     [The  rectification  does  not  affect  the  argument.] 


CHAPTER     VII 

PETITION  OF  THE  MANUFACTURERS  OF  CANDLES,  WAX-LIGHTS, 
LAMPS,  CANDLESTICKS,  STREET  LAMPS,  SNUFFERS,  EX- 
TINGUISHERS, AND  OF  THE  PRODUCERS  OF  OIL,  TALLOW, 
RESIN,  ALCOHOL,  AND,  GENERALLY,  OF  EVERYTHING 
CONNECTED  WITH   LIGHTING 

To  Messieurs  the  Members  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies, 

Gentlemen, — You  are  on  the  right  road.  You  reject 
abstract  theories,  and  have  little  consideration  for  cheap- 
ness and  plenty.  Your  chief  care  is  the  interest  of  the 
producer.  You  desire  to  protect  him  from  foreign  com- 
petition, and  reserve  the  national  market  for  national 
industry. 

We  are  about  to  offer  you  an  admirable  opportunity 
of  applying  your — what  shall  we  call  it  ? — your  theory  ? 
No;  nothing  is  more  deceptive  than  theory — your  doc- 
trine? your  system?  your  principle?  But  you  dislike 
doctrines,  you  abhor  systems,  and  as  for  principles  you 
deny  that  there  are  any  in  social  economy.  We  shall 
say,  then,  your  practice — your  practice  without  theory 
and  without  principle. 

We  are  suffering  from  the  intolerable  competition  of  a 
foreign  rival,  placed,  it  would  seem,  in  a  condition  so  far 
superior  to  ours  for  the  production  of  light  that  he  abso- 
lutely inundates,  our  national  market  with  it  at  a  price 
fabulously  reduced.  The  moment  he  shows  himself  our 
trade  leaves  us — all  consumers  apply  to  him ;  and  a 
branch  of  native  industry,  having  countless  ramifications, 
is  all  at  once  rendered  completely  stagnant.     This  rival, 

who  is  no  other  than  the  sun,  wages  war  to  the  knife 

60 


CANDLEMAKERS'    PETITION  6i 

against  us,  and  we  suspect  that  he  has  been  raised  up 
by  perfidious  Albion  (good  policy  as  times  go);  inasmuch 
as  he  displays  towards  that  haughty  island  a  circum- 
spection with  which  he  dispenses  in  our  case. 

What  we  pray  for  is,  that  it  may  please  you  to  pass 
a  law  ordering  the  shutting  up  of  all  windows,  sky- 
lights, dormer-windows,  outside  and  inside  shutters, 
curtainSj  blinds,  bull's-eyes;  in  a  word,  of  all  openings, 
holes,  chinks,  clefts,  and  fissures,  by  or  through  which 
the  light  of  the  sun  has  been  in  use  to  enter  houses,  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  meritorious  manufactures  with  which 
we  flatter  ourselves  we  have  accommodated  our  country — 
a  country  which,  in  gratitude,  ought  not  to  abandon  us 
now  to  a  strife  so  unequal. 

We  trust.  Gentlemen,  that  you  will  not  regard  this 
our  request  as  a  satire,  or  refuse  it  without  at  least  pre- 
viously hearing  the  reasons  which  we  have  to  urge  in 
its  support. 

And,  first,  if  you  shut  up  as  much  as  possible  all 
access  to  natural  light,  and  create  a  demand  for  artificial 
light,  which  of  our  French  manufactures  will  not  be 
encouraged  by  it  ? 

If  more  tallow  is  consumed,  then  there  must  be  more 
oxen  and  sheep ;  and,  consequently,  we  shall  behold  the 
multiplication  of  meadows,  meat,  wool,  hides,  and,  above 
all,  manure,  which  is  the  basis  and  foundation  of  all 
agricultural  wealth. 

If  more  oil  is  consumed,  then  we  shall  have  an  ex- 
tended cultivation  of  the  poppy,  of  the  olive,  and  of  rape. 
These  rich  and  exhausting  plants  will  come  at  the  right 
time  to  enable  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  increased 
fertility  which  the  rearing  of  additional  cattle  will  impart 
to  our  lands. 

Our  heaths  will  be  covered  with  resinous  trees. 
Numerous  swarms  of  bees  will,  on  the  mountains,  gather 


62  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

perfumed  treasures,  now  wasting  their  fragrance  on  the 
desert  air,  like  the  flowers  from  which  they  emanate. 
No  branch  of  agriculture  but  will  then  exhibit  a  cheering 
development. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  navigation.  Thousands 
of  vessels  will  proceed  to  the  whale  fishery ;  and,  in  a 
short  time,  we  shall  possess  a  navy  capable  of  main- 
taining the  honour  of  France,  and  gratifying  the  patriotic 
aspirations  of  your  petitioners,  the  undersigned  candle- 
makers  and  others. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  manufacture  of  articles 
de  Paris?  Henceforth  you  will  behold  gildings,  bronzes, 
crystals,  in  candlesticks,  in  lamps,  in  lustres,  in  can- 
delabra, shining  forth,  in  spacious  warerooms,  compared 
with  which  those  of  the  present  day  can  be  regarded  but 
as  mere  shops. 

No  poor  resinier  from  his  heights  on  the  seacoast,  no 
coalminer  from  the  depth  of  his  sable  gallery,  but  will 
rejoice  in  higher  wages  and  increased  prosperity. 

Only  have  the  goodness  to  reflect.  Gentlemen,  and 
you  will  be  convinced  that  there  is,  perhaps,  no  French- 
man, from  the  wealthy  coalmaster  to  the  humblest  vendor 
of  lucifer  matches,  whose  lot  will  not  be  ameliorated  by 
the  success  of  this  our  petition. 

We  foresee  your  objections.  Gentlemen,  but  we  know 
that  you  can  oppose  to  us  none  but  such  as  you  have 
picked  up  from  the  effete  works  of  the  partisans  of  Free 
Trade.  We  defy  you  to  utter  a  single  word  against  us 
which  will  not  instantly  rebound  against  yourselves  and 
your  entire  policy. 

You  will  tell  us  that,  if  we  gain  by  the  protection 
which  we  seek,  the  country  will  lose  by  it,  because  the 
consumer  must  bear  the  loss. 

We  answer  : 

You    have   ceased   to   have   any   right   to  invoke   the 


CANDLEMAKERS'    PETITION  63 

interest  of  the  consumer;  for,  whenever  his  interest  is 
found  opposed  to  that  of  the  producer,  you  sacrifice  the 
former.  You  have  done  so  for  the  purpose  of  encourag- 
ing labour  and  increasing  employment.  For  the  same 
reason  you  should  do  so  again. 

You  have  yourselves  obviated  this  objection.  When 
you  are  told  that  the  consumer  is  interested  in  the  free 
importation  of  iron,  coal,  corn,  textile  fabrics — yes,  you 
reply,  but  the  producer  is  interested  in  their  exclusion. 
Well,  be  it  so;  if  consumers  are  interested  in  the  free 
admission  of  natural  light,  the  producers  of  artificial 
light  are  equally  interested  in  its  prohibition. 

But,  again,  you  may  say  that  the  producer  and  con- 
sumer are  identical.  If  the  manufacturer  gain  by  pro- 
tection, he  will  make  the  agriculturist  also  a  gainer;  and 
if  agriculture  prosper,  it  will  open  a  vent  to  manufactures. 
Very  \vell ;  if  you  confer  upon  us  the  monopoly  of 
furnishing  light  during  the  day,  first  of  all  we  shall 
purchase  quantities  of  tallow,  coals,  oils,  resinous  sub- 
stances, wax,  alcohol — besides  silver,  iron,  bronze,  crystal 
— to  carry  on  our  manufactures;  and  then  we,  and  those 
who  furnish  us  with  such  commodities,  having  become 
rich  will  consume  a  great  deal,  and  impart  prosperity 
to  all  the  other  branches  of  our  national  industry. 

If  you  urge  that  the  light  of  the  sun  is  a  gratuitous 
gift  of  nature,  and  that  to  reject  such  gifts  is  to  reject 
wealth  itself  under  pretence  of  encouraging  the  means  of 
acquiring  it,  we  would  caution  you  against  giving  a 
death-blow  to  your  own  policy.  Remember  that  hitherto 
you  have  always  repelled  foreign  products,  because  they 
approximate  more  nearly  than  home  products  to  the 
character  of  gratuitous  gifts.  To  comply  with  the 
exactions  of  other  monopolists,  you  have  only  half  a 
motive;  and  to  repulse  us  simply  because  we  stand  on  a 
stronger  vantage-ground  than  others  would  be  to  adopt 


64  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

the  equation  +  x  +  =  -  ;  in  other  words,  it  would  be 
to  heap  absurdity  upon  absurdity. 

Nature  and  human  labour  co-operate  in  various  pro- 
portions (depending  on  countries  and  climates)  in  the 
production  of  commodities.  The  part  which  nature 
executes  is  always  gratuitous;  it  is  the  part  executed  by 
human  labour  which  constitutes  value,  and  is  paid  for. 

If  a  Lisbon  orange  sells  for  half  the  price  of  a  Paris 
orange,  it  is  because  natural,  and  consequently  gratuitous, 
heat  does  for  the  one  what  artificial,  and  therefore  ex- 
pensive, heat  must  do  for  the  other. 

When  an  orange  comes  to  us  from  Portugal,  we  may 
conclude  that  it  is  furnished  in  part  gratuitously,  in  part 
for  an  onerous  consideration ;  in  other  words,  it  comes  to 
us  at  half-price  as  compared  with  those  of  Paris. 

Now,  it  is  precisely  the  gratuitous  half  (pardon  the 
word)  which  we  contend  should  be  excluded.  You  say, 
How  can  national  labour  sustain  competition  with  foreign 
labour,  when  the  former  has  all  the  work  to  do,  and  the 
latter  only  does  one-half,  the  sun  supplying  the  remainder  ? 
But  if  this  half,  being  gratuitous,  determines  you  to  ex- 
clude competition,  how  should  the  whole,  being  gratuitous, 
induce  you  to  admit  competition  ?  If  you  were  con- 
sistent, you  would,  while  excluding  as  hurtful  to  native 
industry  what  is  half  gratuitous,  exclude  a  fortiori  and 
with  double  zeal,  that  which  is  altogether  gratuitous. 

Once  more,  when  products  such  as  coal,  iron,  corn, 
or  textile  fabrics  are  sent  us  from  abroad,  and  we  can 
acquire  them  with  less  labour  than  if  we  made  them  our- 
selves, the  difference  is  a  free  gift  conferred  upon  us.  The 
gift  is  more  or  less  considerable  in  proportion  as  the 
difference  is  more  or  less  great.  It  amounts  to  a  quarter, 
a  half,  or  three-quarters  of  the  value  of  the  product,  when 
the  foreigner  only  asks  us  for  three-fourths,  a  half,  or  a 
quarter  of  the  price  we  should  otherwise  pay.     It  is  as 


CANDLEMAKERS'    PETITION  65 

perfect  and  complete  as  it  can  be,  when  the  donor  (like 
the  sun  in  furnishing  us  with  light)  asks  us  for  nothing. 
The  question,  and  we  ask  it  formally,  is  this :  Do  you 
desire  for  our  country  the  benefit  of  gratuitous  consump- 
tion, or  the  pretended  advantages  of  onerous  production  ? 
Make  your  choice,  but  be  logical;  for  as  long  as  you 
exclude,  as  you  do,  coal,  iron,  corn,  foreign  fabrics,  in 
proportion  as  their  price  approximates  to  sero,  what 
inconsistency  it  would  be  to  admit  the  light  of  the 
sun,  the  price  of  which  is  already  at  zero  during  the 
entire  day ! 


I 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DIFFERENTIAL   DUTIES 

A  POOR  vine-dresser  of  the  Gironde  had  trained  with  fond 
enthusiasm  a  sHp  of  vine,  which,  after  much  fatigue  and 
much  labour,  yielded  him  at  length  a  tun  of  wine;  and 
his  success  made  him  forget  that  each  drop  of  this  precious 
nectar  had  cost  his  brow  a  drop  of  sweat.  "I  shall  sell 
it,"  said  he  to  his  wife,  "and  with  the  price  I  shall  buy 
stuff  sufficient  to  enable  you  to  furnish  a  trousseau  for  our 
daughter."  The  honest  countryman  repaired  to  the 
nearest  town,  and  met  a  Belgian  and  an  Englishman.  The 
Belgian  said  to  him  :  "  Give  me  your  cask  of  wine,  and  I 
will  give  you  in  exchange  fifteen  parcels  of  stuff."  The 
Englishman  said:  "Give  me  your  wine,  and  I  will  give 
you  twenty  parcels  of  stuff;  for  we  English  can  manu- 
facture the  stuff  cheaper  than  the  Belgians."  But  a 
Customhouse  officer,  who  was  present,  interposed,  and 
said :  "  My  good  friend,  exchange  with  the  Belgian  if  you 
think  proper,  but  my  orders  are  to  prevent  you  from 
making  an  exchange  with  the  Englishman."  "  What!  " 
exclaimed  the  countryman;  "you  wish  me  to  be  content 
with  fifteen  parcels  of  stuff  which  have  come  from  Brussels 
when  I  can  get  twenty  parcels  which  have  come  from 
Manchester?"  "Certainly;  don't  you  see  that  France 
would  be  a  loser  if  you  received  twenty  parcels  instead  of 
fifteen?"  "I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  you,"  said  the 
vine-dresser.  "And  I  am  at  a  loss  to  explain  it,"  rejoined 
the  Customhouse  official;  "but  the  thing  is  certain,  for  all 
our  deputies,  ministers,  and  journalists  agree  in  this,  that 
the  more  a  nation  receives  in  exchange  for  a  given  quantity 

66 


DIFFERENTIAL   DU-TIES  67 

of  its  products,  the  more  it  is  impoverished."  The 
peasant  found  it  necessary  to  conclude  a  bargain  with 
the  Belgian.  The  daughter  of  the  peasant  got  only  three- 
quarters  of  her  trousseau ;  and  these  simple  people  are  still 
asking  themselves  how  it  happens  that  one  is  ruined  by 
receiving  four  instead  of  three;  and  why  a  person  is 
richer  with  three  dozens  of  towels  than  with  four  dozens. 


CHAPTER    IX 

IMMENSE  DISCOVERY 

At  a  time  when  everybody  is  bent  on  bringing  about  a 
saving  in  the  expense  of  transport — and  when,  in  order  to 
effect  this  saving,  we  are  forming  roads  and  canals,  im- 
proving our  steamers,  and  connecting  Paris  with  all  our 
frontiers  by  a  network  of  railways — at  a  time,  too,  when 
I  believe  we  are  ardently  and  sincerely  seeking  a  solution 
of  the  problem,  how  to  bring  the  prices  of  commodities,  in 
the  place  where  they  are  to  be  consumed,  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  the  level  of  their  prices  in  the  place  where  they 
were  produced — I  should  think  myself  wanting  to  my 
country,  to  my  age,  and  to  myself,  if  I  kept  longer  secret 
the  marvellous  discovery  which  I  have  just  made. 

The  illusions  of  inventors  are  proverbial,  but  I  am 
positively  certain  that  I  have  discovered  an  infallible  means 
of  bringing  products  from  every  part  of  the  world  to 
France,  and  vice  versa,  at  a  considerable  reduction  of  cost. 

Infallible,  did  I  say?  Its  being  infallible  is  only  one 
of  the  advantages  of  my  invention. 

It  requires  neither  plans,  estimates,  preparatory  study, 
engineers,  mechanists,  contractors,  capital,  shareholders, 
or  Government  aid  I 

It  presents  no  danger  of  shipwreck,  explosion,  fire,  or 
collision  ! 

It  may  be  brought  into  operation  at  any  time ! 

Moreover — and  this  must  undoubtedly  recommend  it  to 

the  public — it  will  not  add  a  penny  to  the  Budget,  but  the 

reverse.     It  will  not  increase  the  staff  of  functionaries, 

but  the  reverse.    It  will  interfere  with  no  man's  liberty,  but 

the  reverse. 

68 


IMMENSE    DISCOVERY  % 

It  is  observation,  not  chance,  which  has  put  me  in 
possession  of  this  discovery,  and  I  will  tell  you  what 
suggested  it. 

I  had  at  the  time  this  question  to  resolve : 

"Why  does  an  article  manufactured  at  Brussels,  for 
example,  cost  dearer  when  it  comes  to  Paris  ?  " 

I  soon  perceived  that  it  proceeds  from  this :  That  be- 
tween Paris  and  Brussels  obstacles  of  many  kinds  exist. 
First  of  all,  there  is  distance,  which  entails  loss  of  time, 
and  we  must  either  submit  to  this  ourselves,  or  pay  another 
to  submit  to  it.  Then  come  rivers,  marshes,  accidents,  bad 
roads,  which  are  so  many  difficulties  to  be  surmounted. 
We  succeed  in  building  bridges,  in  forming  roads,  and 
making  them  smoother  by  pavements,  iron  rails,  etc.  But 
all  this  is  costly,  and  the  commodity  must  be  made  to  bear 
the  cost.  Then  there  are  robbers  who  infest  the  roads, 
and  a  body  of  police  must  be  kept  up,  etc. 

Now,  among  these  obstacles  there  is  one  which  we  have 
ourselves  set  up,  and  at  no  little  cost,  too,  between  Brus- 
sels and  Paris.  There  are  men  who  lie  in  ambuscade 
along  the  frontier,  armed  to  the  teeth,  and  whose  business 
it  is  to  throw  difficulties  in  the  way  of  transporting  mer- 
chandise from  the  one  country  to  the  other.  They  are 
called  Customhouse  officers,  and  they  act  in  precisely  the 
same  way  as  ruts  and  bad  roads.  They  retard,  they 
trammel  commerce,  they  augment  the  difference  we  have 
remarked  between  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer  and  the 
price  received  by  the  producer — that  very  difference,  the 
reduction  of  which,  as  far  as  possible,  forms  the  subject  of 
our  problem. 

That  problem  is  resolved  in  three  words :  Reduce  your 
tariff. 

You  will  then  have  done  what  is  equivalent  to  con- 
structing the  Northern  Railway  without  cost,  and  will  im- 
mediately begin  to  put  money  in  your  pocket. 


70  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

In  truth,  I  often  seriously  ask  myself  how  anything 
so  whimsical  could  ever  have  entered  into  the  human 
brain,  as  first  of  all  to  lay  out  many  millions  for  the  pur- 
pose of  removing  the  natural  obstacles  which  lie  between 
France  and  other  countries,  and  then  to  lay  out  many  more 
millions  for  the  purpose  of  substituting  artificial  obstacles, 
which  have  exactly  the  same  effect;  so  much  so,  indeed, 
that  the  obstacle  created  and  the  obstacle  removed  neu- 
tralise each  other,  and  leave  things  as  they  were  before, 
the  residue  of  the  operation  being  a  double  expense. 

A  Belgian  product  is  worth  at  Brussels  20  francs,  and 
the  cost  of  carriage  would  raise  the  price  at  Paris  to  30 
francs.  The  same  article  made  in  Paris  costs  40  francs. 
And  how  do  we  proceed  ? 

In  the  first  place,  we  impose  a  duty  of  10  francs  on  the 
Belgian  product,  in  order  to  raise  its  cost  price  at  Paris 
to  40  francs ;  and  we  pay  numerous  officials  to  see  the  duty 
stringently  levied,  so  that,  on  the  road,  the  commodity 
is  charged  10  francs  for  the  carriage  and  10  francs  for 
the  tax. 

Having  done  this,  we  reason  thus :  The  carriage  from 
Brussels  to  Paris,  which  costs  10  francs,  is  very  dear.  Let 
us  expend  two  or  three  hundred  millions  (of  francs)  in  rail- 
ways, and  we  shall  reduce  it  by  one-half.  Evidently  all 
that  we  gain  by  this  is  that  the  Belgian  product  would 
sell  in  Paris  for  35  francs,  viz. : 

20  francs,  its  price  at  Brussels. 
10       ,,        duty. 
5       ,,        reduced  carriage  by  railway. 

Total,  35  francs,  representing  cost  price  at  Paris. 

Now,  I  ask,  would  we  not  have  attained  the  same  result 
by  lowering  the  tariff  by  5  francs  ?    We  should  then  have-^ 


I 


IMMENSE    DISCOVERY  71 

20  francs,  the  price  at  Brussels. 
5       ,,        reduced  duty. 
10       ,,        carriage  by  ordinary  roads. 

Total,  35  francs,  representing  cost  price  at  Paris. 

And  by  this  process  we  should  have  saved  the  200 
millions  which  the  railway!  cost,  plus  the  expense  of 
Customhouse  surveillance,  for  this  last  would  be  reduced 
in  proportion  to  the  diminished  encouragement  held  out 
to  smuggling. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  duty  is  necessary  to  protect 
Parisian  industry.  Be  it  so;  but  then  you  destroy  the 
effect  of  your  railway. 

For,  if  you  persist  in  desiring  that  the  Belgian  product 
should  cost  at  Paris  40  francs,  you  must  raise  your  duty 
to  15  francs,  and  then  you  have — 

20  francs,  the  price  at  Brussels. 
15       ,,        protecting  duty. 
5       ,,        railway  carriage. 

Total,  40  francs,  being  the  equalised  price. 

Then,  I  venture  to  ask,  what,  under  such  circumstances, 
is  the  good  of  your  railway? 

In  sober  earnestness,  let  me  ask,  is  it  not  humiliating 
that  the  nineteenth  century  should  make  itself  a  laughing- 
stock to  future  ages  by  such  puerilities,  practised  with  such 
imperturbable  gravity?  To  be  the  dupe  of  other  people 
is  not  very  pleasant,  but  to  employ  a  vast  representative 
apparatus  in  order  to  dupe,  and  double  dupe,  ourselves — 
and  that,  too,  in  an  affair  of  arithmetic — should  surely 
humble  the  pride  of  this  age  of  enlightenment. 


CHAPTER    X 

RECIPROCITY 

We  have  just  seen  that  whatever  increases  the  expense  of 
conveying  commodities  from  one  country  to  another — in 
other  words,  whatever  renders  transport  more  onerous — 
acts  in  the  same  way  as  a  protective  duty ;  or  if  you  prefer 
to  put  it  in  another  shape,  that  a  protective  duty  acts  in 
the  same  way  as  more  onerous  transport. 

A  tariff,  then,  may  be  regarded  in  the  same  light  as  a 
marsh,  a  rut,  an  obstruction,  a  steep  declivity — in  a  word, 
it  is  an  obstacle,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  augment  the 
difference  between  the  price  which  the  producer  of  a  com- 
modity receives  and  the  price  which  the  consumer  pays 
for  it.  In  the  same  way,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
marshes  and  quagmires  are  to  be  regarded  in  the  same 
light  as  protective  tariffs. 

There  are  people  (few  in  number,  it  is  true,  but  there 
are  such  people)  who  begin  to  understand  that  obstacles 
are  not  less  obstacles  because  they  are  artificial,  and  that 
our  mercantile  prospects  have  more  to  gain  from  liberty 
than  from  protection,  and  exactly  for  the  same  reason 
which  makes  a  canal  more  favourable  to  traffic  than  a 
steep,  roundabout,  and  inconvenient  road. 

But  they  maintain  that  this  liberty  must  be  reciprocal. 
If  we  remove  the  barriers  we  have  erected  against  the 
admission  of  Spanish  goods,  for  example,  Spain  must  re- 
move the  barriers  she  has  erected  against  the  admission 
of  ours.     They  are,  therefore,  the  advocates  of  commercial 

treaties,  on  the  basis  of  exact  reciprocity,  concession  for 

72 


RECIPROCITY  73 

concession ;  let  us  make  the  sacrifice  of  buying,  say  they, 
to  obtain  the  advantage  of  selling. 

People  who  reason  in  this  way,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  are, 
whether  they  know  it  or  not,  protectionists  in  principle; 
only,  they  are  a  little  more  inconsistent  than  pure  protec- 
tionists, as  the  latter  are  more  inconsistent  than  absolute 
prohibitionists. 

The  following  apologue  will  demonstrate  this : 

Stulta  and  Puera 

There  were,  no  matter  where,  two  towns  called  Stulta 
and  Puera.  They  completed  at  great  cost  a  highway  from 
the  one  town  to  the  other.  When  this  was  done,  Stulta 
said  to  herself:  "See  how  Puera  inundates  us  with  her 
products ;  we  must  see  to  it."  In  consequence,  they  created 
and  paid  a  body  of  obstructives,  so  called  because  their 
business  was  to  place  obstacles  in  the  way  of  traffic  coming 
from  Puera.     Soon  afterwards  Puera  did  the  same. 

At  the  end  of  some  centuries,  knowledge  having  in 
the  interim  made  great  progress,  the  common  sense  of 
Puera  enabled  her  to  see  that  such  reciprocal  obstacles 
could  only  be  reciprocally  hurtful.  She  therefore  sent 
a  diplomatist  to  Stulta,  who,  laying  aside  official 
phraseology,  spoke  to  this  effect:  '*  We  have  made  a 
highway,  and  now  we  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
using  it.  This  is  absurd.  It  would  have  been  better  to 
have  left  things  as  they  were.  We  should  not,  in  that 
case,  have  had  to, pay  for  making  the  road  in  the  first 
place,  nor  afterwards  have  incurred  the  expense  of  main- 
taining obstructives.  In  the  name  of  Puera,  I  come  to 
propose  to  you,  not  to  give  up  opposing  each  other  all 
at  once — that  would  be  to  act  upon  a  principle,  and  we 
despise  principles  as  much  as  you  do — but  to  lessen  some- 
what the  present  obstacles,  taking  care  to  estimate 
equitably  the  respective  sacrifices  we  make  for  this  pur- 


74  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

pose."  So  spoke  the  diplomatist.  Stulta  asked  for  time 
to  consider  the  proposal,  and  proceeded  to  consult,  in 
succession,  her  manufacturers  and  agriculturists.  At 
length,  after  the  lapse  of  some  years,  she  declared  that 
the  negotiations  were  broken  off. 

On  receiving  this  intimation,  the  inhabitants  of  Puera 
held  a  meeting.  An  old  gentleman  (they  always  suspected 
he  had  been  secretly  bought  by  Stulta)  rose  and  said : 
The  obstacles  created  by  Stulta  injure  our  sales,  which 
is  a  misfortune.  Those  which  we  have  ourselves  created 
injure  our  purchases,  which  is  another  misfortune.  With 
reference  to  the  first,  we  are  powerless;  but  the  second 
rests  with  ourselves.  Let  us,  at  least,  get  quit  of  one, 
since  we  cannot  rid  ourselves  of  both  evils.  Let  us 
suppress  our  obstructives  without  requiring  Stulta  to  do 
the  same.  Some  day,  no  doubt,  she  will  come  to  know 
her  own  interests  better. 

A  second  counsellor,  a  practical,  matter-of-fact  man, 
guiltless  of  any  acquaintance  with  principles,  and  brought 
up  in  the  ways  of  his  forefathers,  replied:  "Don't  listen 
to  that  Utopian  dreamer,  that  theorist,  that  innovator, 
that  economist,  that  Stultomaniac .  We  shall  all  be  un- 
done if  the  stoppages  of  the  road  are  not  equalised, 
weighed,  and  balanced  between  Stulta  and  Puera.  There 
would  be  greater  difficulty  in  going  than  in  coming,  in 
exporting  than  in  importing.  We  should  find  ourselves 
in  the  same  condition  of  inferiority  relatively  to  Stulta 
as  Havre,  Nantes,  Bordeaux,  Lisbon,  London,  Hamburg, 
and  New  Orleans  are  with  relation  to  the  towns  situated 
at  the  sources  of  the  Seine,  the  Loire,  the  Garonne,  the 
Tagus,  the  Thames,  the  Elbe,  and  the  Mississippi,  for 
it  is  more  difficult  for  a  ship  to  ascend  than  to  descend 
a  river.  (A  Voice:  Towns  at  the  mouths  of  rivers 
prosper  more  than  towns  at  their  source.)  This  is  im- 
possible.   {Same  Voice:  But  it  Is  so.)    Well,  if  it  be  so, 


RECIPROCITY  75 

they  have  prospered  contrary  to  rules.*'  Reasoning  so 
conclusive  convinced  the  assembly,  and  the  orator  fol- 
lowed up  his  victory  by  talking  largely  of  national  in- 
dependence, national  honour,  national  dignity,  national 
labour,  inundation  of  products,  tributes,  murderous  com- 
petition. In  short,  he  carried  the  vote  in  favour  of  the 
maintenance  of  obstacles;  and  if  you  are  at  all  curious 
on  the  subject,  I  can  point  out  to  you  countries  where 
you  will  see  with  your  own  eyes  Road-makers  and 
Obstructives  working  together  on  the  most  friendly  terms 
possible,  under  the  orders  of  the  same  legislative  assembly, 
and  at  the  expense  of  the  same  taxpayers,  the  one  set 
endeavouring  to  clear  the  road,  and  the  other  set  doing 
their  utmost  to  render  it  impassable. 


h 


CHAPTER     XI 

NOMINAL    PRICES 

Do  you  desire  to  be  in  a  situation  to  decide  between 
liberty  and  protection  ?  Do  you  desire  to  appreciate  the 
bearing  of  an  economic  phenomenon  ?  Inquire  into  its 
effects  upon  the  abundance  or  scarcity  of  commodities, 
and  not  upon  the  rise  or  fall  of  prices.  Distrust  nominal 
prices^;  they  will  only  land  you  in  an  inextricable 
labyrinth. 

M.  Matthieu  de  Dombasle,  after  having  shown  that 
Protection  raises  prices,  adds  : — 

**  The  enhancement  of  price  increases  the  expense  of 
living,  and  consequently  the  price  of  labour,  and  each 
man  receives,  in  the  enhanced  price  of  his  products, 
compensation  for  the  higher  prices  he  has  been  obliged 
to  pay  for  the  things  he  has  occasion  to  buy.  Thus,  if 
everyone  pays  more  as  a  consumer,  everyone  receives 
more  as  a  producer." 

It  is  evident  that  we  could  reverse  this  argument, 
and  say  : — 

**  If  everyone  receives  more  as  a  producer,  everyone 
pays  more  as  a  consumer." 

Now,  what  does  this  prove?  Nothing  but  this,  that 
Protection  displaces  wealth  uselessly  and  unjustly.  In 
so  far,  it  simply  perpetrates  spoliation. 

Again,  to  conclude  that  this  vast  apparatus  leads  to 

*  I  have  translated  the  expression  des  -prix  absolus,  nominal  f  rices,  or 
actual  money  -prices,  because  the  English  economists  do  not,  so  far  as  I 
remember,  make  use  of  the  term  absolute  price. — See  ch.  iii.  of 
second  series,  where  the  author  employs  the  expression  in  this  sense. — 
Translator. 

76 


NOMINAL   PRICES  77 

simple  compensations,  we  must  stick  to  the  **  conse- 
quently "  of  M.  de  Dombasle,  and  make  sure  that  the 
price  of  labour  will  not  fail  to  rise  with  the  price  of  the 
protected  products.  This  is  a  question  of  fact  which  I 
remit  to  M.  Moreau  de  Jonn^s,  that  he  may  take  the 
trouble  to  find  out  whether  the  rate  of  wages  advances 
along  with  the  price  of  shares  in  the  coal-mines  of  Anzin. 
For  my  own  part,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  does;  because, 
in  my  opinion,  the  price  of  labour,  like  the  price  of  every- 
thing else,  is  governed  by  the  relation  of  supply  to 
demand.  Now,  I  am  convinced  that  restriction  diminishes 
the  supply  of  coal,  and  consequently  enhances  its  price; 
but  I  do  not  see  so  clearly  that  it  increases  the  demand 
for  labour,  so  as  to  enhance  the  rate  of  wages;  and  that 
this  effect  should  be  produced  is  all  the  less  likely, 
because  the  quantity  of  labour  demanded  depends  on 
the  disposable  capital.  Now,  Protection  may  indeed  dis- 
place capital,  and  cause  its  transference  from  one  employ- 
ment to  another,  but  it  can  never  increase  it  by  a  single 
farthing. 

But  this  question,  which  is  one  of  the  greatest  interest 
and  importance,  will  be  examined  in  another  place. ^  I 
return  to  the  subject  of  nominal  price;  and  I  maintain 
that  it  is  not  one  of  those  absurdities  which  can  be 
rendered  specious  by  such  reasonings  as  those  of  M.  de 
Dombasle. 

Put  the  case  of  a  nation  which  is  isolated,  and  pos- 
sesses a  given  amount  of  specie,  and  which  chooses  to 
amuse  itself  by  burning  each  year  one-half  of  all  the 
commodities  that  it  possesses.  I  undertake  to  prove  that, 
according  to  the  theory  of  M.  de  Dombasle,  it  will  not 
be  less  rich. 

In  fact,  in  consequence  of  the  fire,  all  things  will  be 
doubled  in  price,  and  the  inventories  of  property,  made 
*  See  ch.  iii.,  second  series. — Translator. 


78  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

before  and  after  the  destruction,  will  show  exactly  the 
same  nominal  value.  But  then  what  will  the  country  in 
question  have  lost?  If  John  buys  his  cloth  dearer,  he 
also  sells  his  corn  at  a  higher  price;  and  if  Peter  loses 
on  his  purchase  of  corn,  he  retrieves  his  losses  by  the 
sale  of  his  cloth.  *'  Each  recovers,  in  the  extra  price 
of  his  products,  the  extra  expense  of  living  he  has  been 
put  to;  and  if  everybody  pays  as  a  consumer,  everybody 
receives  a  corresponding  amount  as  a  producer." 

All  this  is  a  jingling  quibble,  and  not  science.  The 
truth,  in  plain  terms,  is  this  :  That  men  consume  cloth 
and  corn  by  fire  or  by  using  them,  and  that  the  effect 
is  the  same  as  regards  price,  but  not  as  regards  wealth, 
for  it  is  precisely  in  the  use  of  commodities  that  wealth 
or  material  prosperity  consists. 

In  the  same  way,  restriction,  while  diminishing  the 
abundance  of  things,  may  raise  their  price  to  such  an 
extent  that  each  party  shall  be,  pecuniarily  speaking,  as 
rich  as  before.  But  to  set  down  in  an  inventory  three 
measures  of  corn  at  20s.,  or  four  measures  at  15s., 
because  the  result  is  still  60s. — would  this,  I  ask,  come 
to  the  same  thing  with  reference  to  the  satisfaction  of 
men's  wants? 

It  is  to  this,  the  consumer's  point  of  view,  that  I 
shall  never  cease  to  recall  the  Protectionists,  for  this  is 
the  end  and  design  of  all  our  efforts,  and  the  solution 
of  all  problems.^  I  shall  never  cease  to  say  to  them  : 
Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  true  that  restriction  by  impeding  ex- 
changes, by  limiting  the  division  of  labour,  by  forcing 
labour  to  connect  itself  with  difficulties  of  climate  and 
situation,  diminishes  ultimately  the  quantity  of  commo- 

^  To  this  view  of  the  subject  the  author  frequently  reverts.  It  was, 
in  his  eyes,  all  important ;  and,  four  days  before  his  death,  he  dictated 
this  recommendation:  "Tell  M,  de  F.  to  treat  economical  questions 
always  from  the  consumer's  point  of  view,  for  the  interest  of  the  consumer 
is  identical  with  that  of  the  human  race." — French  Editor. 


NOMINAL   PRICES  79 

dities  produced  by  a  determinate  amount  of  efforts  ?  And 
what  does  this  signify,  it  will  be  said,  if  the  smaller 
quantity  produced  under  the  regime  of  Protection  has 
the  same  nominal  value  as  that  produced  under  the  regime 
of  liberty?  The  answer  is  obvious.  Man  does  not  live 
upon  nominal  values,  but  upon  real  products,  and  the 
more  products  there  are,  whatever  be  their  price,  the 
richer  he  is. 

In  writing  what  precedes,  I  never  expected  to  meet 
with  an  anti-economist  who  was  enough  of  a  logician 
to  admit,  in  so  many  words,  that  the  wealth  of  nations 
depends  on  the  value  of  things,  apart  from  the  con- 
sideration of  their  abundance.  But  here  is  what  I  find 
in  the  work  of  M.  de  Saint-Chamans  (p.  210): — 

"  If  fifteen  millions'  worth  of  commodities,  sold  to 
foreigners,  are  taken  from  the  total  production,  estimated 
at  fifty  millions,  the  thirty-five  millions'  worth  of  com- 
modities remaining,  not  being  sufficient  to  meet  the 
ordinary  demand,  will  increase  in  price,  and  rise  to  the 
value  of  fifty  millions.  In  that  case  the  revenue  of  the 
country  will  represent  a  value  of  fifteen  millions  additional. 
.  .  .  There  would  then  be  an  mcrease  of  the  wealth  of  the 
country  to  the  extent  of  fifteen  millions,  exactly  the  amount 
of  specie  imported." 

This  is  a  pleasant  view  of  the  matter  I  If  a  natiqn 
produces  in  one  year,  from  its  agriculture  and  commerce, 
a  value  of  fifty  millions,  it  has  only  to  sell  a  quarter  of 
it  to  the  foreigner  to  be  a  quarter  richer !  Then  if  it 
sells  the  half,  it  will  be  one-half  richer !  And  if  it  should 
sell  the  whole,  to  its  last  tuft  of  wool  and  its  last 
grain  of  wheat,  it  would  bring  up  its  revenue  to  one 
hundred  millions.  Singular  way  of  getting  rich,  by  pro- 
ducing infinite  dearness  by  absolute  scarcity  ! 

Again,  would  you  judge  of  the  two  doctrines  ?  Submit 
them  to  the  test  of  exaggeration. 


8o  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  M.  de  Saint-Chamans, 
the  French  would  be  quite  as  rich — that  is  to  say,  quite 
as  well  supplied  with  all  things — had  they  only  a 
thousandth  part  of  their  annual  products,  because  they 
would  be  worth  a  thousand  times  more. 

According  to  our  doctrine,  the  French  would  be  in- 
finitely rich  if  their  annual  products  were  infinitely  abun- 
dant, and,  consequently,  without  any  value  at  all.^ 

1  See  ch.    iii.   of  second   series  of   Sofhisms;    and  ch.   iv.   of  Har- 
monies Economiques. 


CHAPTER   XII 

DOES    PROTECTION    RAISE   THE   RATE    OF    WAGES? 

Let  us  inquire  whether  injustice  is  not  done  you  by- 
fixing  legislatively  the  people  from  whom  you  are  to 
purchase  the  things  you  have  need  of — bread,  meat, 
linens,  or  cloth;  and  in  dictating,  if  I  may  say  so,  the 
artificial  scale  of  prices  which  you  are  to  adopt  in  your 
dealings. 

Is  it  true  that  protection,  which  admittedly  makes  you 
pay  dearer  for  everything,  and  entails  a  loss  upon  you  in 
this  respect,  raises  proportionately  your  wages  ? 

On  what  does  the  rate  of  wages  depend? 

One  of  your  own  class  has  put  it  forcibly,  thus  :  When 
two  workmen  run  after  one  master,  wages  fall;  they  rise 
when  two  masters  run  after  one  workman. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity,  allow  me  to  make  use  of  this 
formula,  more  scientific,  although,  perhaps,  not  quite  so 
clear.  The  rate  of  wages  depends  on  the  proportion  which 
the  supply  of  labour  bears  to  the  demand  for  it. 

Now,  on  what  does  the  supply  of  labour  depend? 

On  the  number  of  men  waiting  for  employment;  and  on 
this  first  element  protection  can  have  no  effect. 

On  what  does  the  rate  of  wages  depend? 

On  the  disposable  capital  of  the  nation.  But  does  the 
law  which  says  :  We  shall  no  longer  receive  such  or  such 
a  product  from  abroad,  we  shall  make  it  at  home,  augment 
the  capital  ?  Not  in  the  least  degree.  It  may  force  capital 
from  one  employment  to  another,  but  it  does  not  increase 
it  by  a  single  farthing.  It  does  not  then  increase  the 
demand  for  labour. 

G  8i 


82  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

We  point  with  pride  to  a  certain  manufacture.  Is  it 
established  or  maintained  with  capital  which  has  fallen 
from  the  moon  ?  No ;  that  capital  has  been  withdrawn 
from  agriculture,  from  shipping,  from  the  production  of 
wines.  And  this  is  the  reason  why,  under  the  system  of 
protective  tariffs,  there  are  more  workmen  in  our  mines  and 
in  our  manufacturing  towns,  and  fewer  sailors  in  our  ports, 
and  fewer  labourers  in  our  fields  and  vineyards. 

I  could  expatiate  at  length  on  this  subject,  but  I  prefer 
to  explain  what  I  mean  by  an  example. 

A  countryman  was  possessed  of  twenty  acres  of  land, 
which  he  worked  with  a  capital  of  ;^400.  He  divided  his 
land  into  four  parts,  and  established  the  following  rotation 
of  crops:  ist,  maize;  2nd,  wheat;  3rd,  clover;  4th,  rye. 
He  required  for  his  own  family  only  a  moderate  portion 
of  the  grain,  meat,  and  milk  which  his  farm  produced, 
and  he  sold  the  surplus  to  buy  oil,  flax,  wine,  etc.  His 
whole  capital  was  expended  each  year  in  wages,  hires,  and 
small  payments  to  the  working  classes  in  his  neighbour- 
hood. This  capital  was  returned  to  him  in  his  sales,  and 
even  went  on  increasing  year  by  year;  and  our  country- 
man, knowing  very  well  that  capital  produces  nothing 
when  it  is  unemployed,  benefited  the  working  classes  by 
devoting  the  annual  surplus  to  enclosing  and  clearing  his 
land,  and  to  improving  his  agricultural  implements  and 
farm  buildings.  He  had  even  some  savings  in  the  neigh- 
bouring town  with  his  banker,  who,  of  course,  did  not  let 
the  money  lie  idle  in  his  till,  but  lent  it  to  shipowners 
and  contractors  for  public  works,  so  that  these  savings 
were  always  resolving  themselves  into  wages. 

At  length  the  countryman  died,  and  his  son,  who  suc- 
ceeded him,  said  to  himself:  *'My  father  was  a  dupe  all 
his  life.  He  purchased  oil,  and  so  paid  tribute  to  Pro- 
vence, whilst  our  own  land,  with  some  pains,  can  be  made 
to  grow  the  olive.     He  bought  cloth,  wine,  and  oranges. 


I 


PROTECTION   AND   WAGES  83 

and  thus  paid  tribute  to  Brittany,  Medoc,  and  Hy^res, 
whilst  we  can  cultivate  hemp,  the  vine,  and  the  orange 
tree  with  more  or  less  success.  He  paid  tribute  to  the 
miller  and  the  weaver,  whilst  our  own  domestics  can 
weave  our  linen  and  grind  our  wheat.  In  this  way  he 
ruined  himself,  and  spent  among  strangers  that  money 
which  he  might  have  spent  at  home." 

Misled  by  such  reasoning,  the  volatile  youth  changed 
his  rotation  of  crops.  His  land  he  divided  into  twenty 
divisions.  In  one  he  planted  olives,  in  another  mulberry 
trees,  in  a  third  he  sowed  flax,  in  a  fourth  he  had  vines, 
in  a  fifth  wheat,  and  so  on.  By  this  means  he  succeeded 
in  supplying  his  family  with  what  they  required,  and  felt 
himself  independent.  He  no  longer  drew  anything  from 
the  general  circulation,  nor  did  he  add  anything  to  it. 
Was  he  the  richer  for  this?  No;  for  the  soil  was  not 
adapted  for  the  cultivation  of  the  vine,  and  the  climate 
was  not  fitted  for  the  successful  cultivation  of  the  olive; 
and  he  was  not  long  in  finding  out  that  his  family  was 
less  plentifully  provided  with  all  the  things  which  they 
wanted  than  in  the  time  of  his  father,  who  procured  them 
by  exchanging  his  surplus  produce. 

As  regarded  his  workmen,  they  had  no  more  employ- 
ment than  formerly.  There  were  five  times  more  fields, 
but  each  field  was  five  times  smaller;  they  produced  oil, 
but  they  produced  less  wheat;  he  no  longer  purchased 
linens,  but  he  no  longer  sold  rye.  Moreover,  the  farmer 
could  expend  in  wages  only  the  amount  of  his  capital,  and 
his  capital  went  on  constantly  diminishing.  A  great  part 
of  it  went  for  buildings,  and  the  various  implements  needed 
for  the  more  varied  cultivation  in  which  he  had  engaged. 
In  short,  the  supply  of  labour  remained  the  same,  but  as 
the  means  of  remunerating  that  labour  fell  off,  the  ultimate 
result  was  a  forcible  reduction  of  wages. 

On  a  greater  scale,  this  is  exactly  what  takes  place  in 


84  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

the  case  of  a  nation  which  isolates  itself  by  adopting  a 
prohibitive  system.  It  multiplies  its  branches  of  industry, 
I  grant,  but  they  become  of  diminished  importance;  it 
adopts,  so  to  speak,  a  more  complicated  industrial  rotation, 
but  it  is  not  so  prolific,  because  its  capital  and  labour  have 
now  to  struggle  with  natural  difficulties.  A  greater  pro- 
portion of  its  circulating  capital,  which  forms  the  wages 
fund,  must  be  converted  into  fixed  capital.  What  remains 
may  have  more  varied  employment,  but  the  total  mass  is 
not  increased.  It  is  like  distributing  the  water  of  a  pond 
among  a  multitude  of  shallow  reservoirs — it  covers  more 
ground,  and  presents  a  greater  surface  to  the  rays  of  the 
sun,  and  it  is  precisely  for  this  reason  that  it  is  all  the 
sooner  absorbed,  evaporated,  and  lost. 

The  amount  of  capital  and  labour  being  given,  they 
create  a  smaller  amount  of  commodities  in  proportion  as 
they  encounter  more  obstacles.  It  is  beyond  doubt,  that 
when  international  obstructions  force  capital  and  labour 
into  channels  and  localities  where  they  meet  with  greater 
difficulties  of  soil  and  climate,  the  general  result  must  be, 
fewer  products  created — that  is  to  say,  fewer  enjoyments 
for  consumers.  Now,  when  there  are  fewer  enjoyments 
upon  the  whole,  will  the  workman's  share  of  them  be  aug- 
mented ?  If  it  were  augmented,  as  is  asserted,  then  the 
rich — the  men  who  make  the  laws — would  find  their  own 
share  not  only  subject  to  the  general  diminution,  but  that 
diminished  share  would  be  still  further  reduced  by  what 
was  added  to  the  labourers'  share.  Is  this  possible?  Is 
it  credible?  I  advise  you,  workmen,  to  reject  such  sus- 
picious generosity.^ 

^  See  Harmonies  Economiques,  ch.  xiv, — French  Editor. 


CHAPTER      XIII 

THEORY — PRACTICE 

As  advocates  of  Free  Trade,  we  are  accused  of  being 
theorists,  and  of  not  taking  practice  sufficiently  into 
account. 

''  What  fearful  prejudices  were  entertained  against 
M.  Say,"  says  M.  Ferrier,^  "by  that  long  train  of  dis- 
tinguished administrators,  and  that  imposing  phalanx  of 
authors  who  dissented  from  his  opinions;  and  M.  Say 
was  not  unaware  of  it.  Hear  what  he  says  :  *  It  has  been 
alleged  in  support  of  errors  of  long  standing  that  there 
must  have  been  some  foundation  for  ideas  which  have 
been  adopted  by  all  nations.  Ought  we  not  to  distrust 
observations  and  reasonings  which  run  counter  to  opinions 
which  have  been  constantly  entertained  down  to  our  own 
time,  and  which  have  been  regarded  as  sound  by  so 
many  men  remarkable  for  their  enlightenment  and  their 
good  intentions?  This  argument,  I  allow,  is  calculated 
to  make  a  profound  impression,  and  it  might  have  cast 
doubt  upon  points  which  we  deem  the  most  incontestable, 
if  we  had  not  seen,  by  turns,  opinions  the  most  false, 
and  now  generally  acknowledged  to  be  false,  received 
and  professed  by  everybody  during  a  long  series  of  ages. 
Not  very  long  ago  all  nations,  from  the  rudest  to  the 
most  enlightened,  and  all  men,  from  the  street-porter  to 
the  savant,  admitted  the  existence  of  four  elements.  No 
one  thought  of  contesting  that  doctrine,  which,  however, 
is  false;  so  much  so  that  even  the  greenest  assistant  in 

^  De  P Administration   Commerciale  offosee  a  VEconomie  Politique, 
P-  5- 

85 


86  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

a  naturalist's  class-room  would  be  ashamed  to  say  that 
he  regarded  earth,  water  and  fire  as  elements.'  " 

On  this  M.   Ferrier  remarks: — 

"If  M.  Say  thinks  to  answer  thus  the  very  strong 
objection  which  he  brings  forward  he  is  singularly  mis- 
taken. That  men,  otherwise  well  informed,  should  have 
been  mistaken  for  centuries  on  certain  points  of  natural 
history  is  easily  understood,  and  proves  nothing.  Water, 
air,  earth  and  fire,  whether  elements  or  not,  are  not  tjie 
less  useful  to  man.  .  .  .  Such  errors  are  unimportant : 
they  lead  to  no  popular  commotions,  no  uneasiness  in 
the  public  mind;  they  run  counter  to  no  pecuniary  in- 
terest; and  this  is  the  reason  why  without  any  felt  in- 
convenience they  may  endure  for  a  thousand  years.  The 
physical  world  goes  on  as  if  they  did  not  exist.  But  of 
errors  in  the  moral  world  can  the  same  thing  be  said? 
Can  we  conceive  that  a  system  of  administration,  found 
to  be  absolutely  false  and  therefore  hurtful,  should  be 
followed  out  among  many  nations  for  centuries,  with  the 
general  approval  of  all  w^ell-informed  men  ?  Can  it  be 
explained  how  such  a  system  could  coexist  with  the  con- 
stantly increasing  prosperity  of  nations?  M.  Say  admits 
that  the  argument  which  he  combats  is  fitted  to  make  a 
profound  impression.  Yes,  indeed;  and  the  impression 
remains;  for  M.  Say  has  rather  deepened  than  done  away 
with  it." 

Let  us  hear  what  M.  de  Saint-Chamans  says  on  the 
same  subject : — 

*'  It  was  only  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  of 
that  eighteenth  century  which  handed  over  all  subjects 
and  all  principles  without  exception  to  free  discussion, 
that  these  speculative  purveyors  of  ideas,  applied  by  them 
to  all  things  without  being  really  applicable  to  anything, 
began  to  write  upon  political  economy.  There  existed 
previously  a  system  of  political  economy  not  to  be  found 


TH  EOR  Y^PR  ACTICE  87 

in  books,  but  which  had  been  put  in  practical  operation 
by  governments.  Colbert,  it  is  said,  was  the  inventor 
of  it,  and  it  was  adopted  as  a  rule  by  all  the  nations  of 
Europe.  The  singular  thing  is  that,  in  spite  of  contempt 
and  maledictions,  in  spite  of  all  the  discoveries  of  the 
modern  school,  it  still  remains  in  practical  operation. 
This  system,  which  our  authors  have  called  the  mercantile 
system,  was  designed  to  .  .  .  impede,  by  prohibitions 
or  import  duties,  the  entry  of  foreign  products  which 
might  ruin  our  own  manufactures  by  their  competition. 
Economic  writers  of  all  schools^  have  declared  this  system 
untenable,  absurd,  and  calculated  to  impoverish  any 
country.  It  has  been  banished  from  all  their  books,  and 
forced  to  take  refuge  in  the  practical  legislation  of  all 
nations.  They  cannot  conceive  why,  in  measures  relating 
to  national  w^ealth,  governments  should  not  follow  the 
advice  and  opinions  of  learned  authors,  rather  than  trust 
to  their  experience  of  the  tried  working  of  a  system 
which  has  been  long  in  operation.  Above  all,  they  cannot 
conceive  why  the  French  government  should  in  economic 
questions  obstinately  set  itself  to  resist  the  progress  of 
enlightenment,  and  maintain  in  its  practice  those  ancient 
errors,  which  all  our  economic  writers  have  exposed.  But 
enough  of  this  mercantile  system,  which  has  nothing  in 
its  favour  but  facts,  and  is  not  defended  by  any  specu- 
lative writer."  ^ 

Such  language  as  this  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that 
in  demanding  for  everyone  the  free  disposal  of  his  pro- 
perty, economists  were  propounding  some  new  system, 
some  new,  strange  and  chimerical  social  order,  a  sort  of 

1  Might  we  not  say,  that  it  is  a  "fearful  prejudice"  against  MM. 
Ferrier  and  Saint-Chamans,  that  "  economists  of  all  schools,  that  is  to 
say,  everybody  who  has  studied  the  question,  should  have  arrived  at  the 
conclusion,  that,  after  all,  liberty  is  better  than  constraint,  and  the  laws 
of  God  wiser  than  those  of  Colbert." 

2  Du  Systeme  de  Vlm-^ot,  -par  M.  le  Vicomte  de  Saint-Chamans,  p.  ii. 


8S  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

'phalanstere,  coined  in  the  mint  of  their  own  brain,  and 
without  precedent  in  the  annals  of  the  human  race.  To 
me  it  would  seem  that  if  we  have  here  anything  factitious 
or  contingent,  it  is  to  be  found,  not  in  liberty,  but  in 
protection ;  not  in  the  free  power  of  exchanging,  but  in 
customs  duties  employed  to  overturn  artificially  the 
natural  course  of  remuneration. 

But  our  business  at  present  is  not  to  compare,  or 
pronounce  between,  the  two  systems ;  but  to  inquire  which 
of  the  two  is  founded  on  experience. 

The  advocates  of  monopoly  maintain  that  the  facts 
are  on  their  side,  and  that  we  have  on  our  side  only 
theory. 

They  flatter  themselves  that  this  long  series  of  public 
acts,  this  old  experience  of  Europe,  which  they  invoke, 
has  presented  itself  as  something  very  formidable  to  the 
mind  of  M.  Say;  and  I  grant  that  he  has  not  refuted  it 
wdth  his  wonted  sagacity.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  not 
disposed  to  concede  to  the  monopolists  the  domain  of 
facts,  for  they  have  only  in  their  favour  facts  which  are 
forced  and  exceptional;  and  we  oppose  to  these,  facts 
which  are  universal,  the  free  and  voluntary  acts  of  man- 
kind at  large. 

What  do  we  say;  and  what  do  they  say? 

We  say :  — 

**  You  should  buy  from  others  what  you  cannot  make 
for  yourself  but  at  a  greater  expense." 

And  they  say  :  — 

**  It  is  better  to  make  things  for  yourself,  although 
they  cost  you  more  than  the  price  at  which  you  could 
buy  them  from  others." 

Now,  gentlemen,  throwing  aside  theory,  argument, 
demonstration — all  which  seem  to  affect  you  with  nausea 
— which  of  these  two  assertions  has  on  its  side  the  sanction 
of  universal  practice? 


THEORY— PRACTICE  89 

Visit  your  fields,  your  workshops,  your  forges,  your 
warehouses;  look  above,  below,  and  around  you;  look 
at  what  takes  place  in  your  own  houses ;  remark  your  own 
everyday  acts ;  and  say  what  is  the  principle  which  guides 
these  labourers,  artisans  and  merchants;  say  what  is  your 
own  personal  practice. 

Does  the  farmer  make  his  own  clothes?  Does  the 
tailor  produce  the  corn  he  consumes  ?  Does  your  house- 
keeper continue  to  have  your  bread  made  at  home,  after 
she  finds  she  can  buy  it  cheaper  from  the  baker?  Do 
you  resign  the  pen  for  the  brush  to  save  your  paying 
tribute  to  the  shoeblack?  Does  the  entire  economy  of 
society  not  rest  upon  the  separation  of  employments,  the 
division  of  labour — in  a  word,  upon  exchange?  And 
what  is  exchange  but  a  calculation  which  we  make  with 
a  view  to  discontinuing  direct  production  in  every  case 
in  which  we  find  that  possible,  and  in  which  indirect 
acquisition  enables  us  to  effect  a  saving  in  time  and  in 
effort  ? 

It  is  not  you,  therefore,  who  are  the  men  of  practice, 
since  you  cannot  point  to  a  single  human  being  who  acts 
upon  your  principle. 

But  you  will  say,  we  never  intended  to  make  our 
principle  a  rule  for  individual  relations.  We  perfectly 
understand  that  this  would  be  to  break  up  the  bond  of 
society,  and  would  force  men  to  live  like  snails,  each  in 
his  own  shell.  All  that  we  contend  for  is  that  our  prin- 
ciple regulates  de  facto  the  relations  which  obtain  between 
the  different  agglomerations  of  the  human  family. 

Well,  I  affirm  that  this  principle  is  still  erroneous. 
The  family,  the  commune,  the  canton,  the  department, 
the  province,  are  so  many  agglomerations,  which  all, 
without  any  exception,  reject  practically  your  principle, 
and  have  never  dreamt  of  acting  on  it.  All  procure 
themselves,   by  means  of  exchange,   those  things  which 


90  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

it  would  cost  them  dearer  to  procure  by  means  of  pro- 
duction. And  nations  would  do  the  same,  did  you  not 
hinder  them  by  force. 

We,  then,  are  the  men  of  practice  and  of  experience; 
for  we  oppose  to  the  restriction  which  you  have  placed  ex- 
ceptionally on  certain  international  exchanges  the  practice 
and  experience  of  all  individuals  and  of  all  agglomera- 
tions of  individuals,  whose  acts  are  voluntary  and  can 
consequently  be  adduced  as  evidence.  But  you  begin  by 
constraining^  by  hindering,  and  then  you  lay  hold  of  acts 
which  are  forced  or  prohibited,  as  warranting  you  to  ex- 
claim,  "We  have  practice  and  experience  on  our  side  !  " 

You  inveigh  against  our  theory,  and  even  against 
theories  in  general.  But  when  you  lay  down  a  principle 
in  opposition  to  ours  you  perhaps  imagine  you  are  not 
proceeding  on  theory.  Clear  your  heads  of  that  idea. 
You,  in  fact,  form  a  theory  as  we  do;  but  between  your 
theory  and  ours  there  is  this  difference:  — 

Our  theory  consists  merely  in  observing  universal 
facts,  universal  opinions,  calculations  and  ways  of  pro- 
ceeding which  universally  prevail ;  and  in  classifying  these 
and  rendering  them  co-ordinate,  with  a  view  to  their 
being  more  easily  understood. 

Our  theory  is  so  little  opposed  to  practice  that  it  is 
nothing  else  but  practice  explained.  We  observe  men 
acting  as  they  are  moved  by  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  and  a  desire  for  progress,  and  what  they 
thus  do  freely  and  voluntarily  we  denominate  political 
or  social  economy.  We  can  never  help  repeating  that 
each  individual  man  is  practically  an  excellent  economist, 
producing  or  exchanging  according  as  he  finds  it  more 
to  his  interest  to  produce  or  to  exchange.  Each,  by 
experience,  educates  himself  in  this  science;  or,  rather, 
the  science  itself  is  only  this  same  experience  accurately 
observed  and  methodically  explained. 


THEORY— PRACTICE  91 

But  on  your  side  you  construct  a  theory  in  the  worst 
sense  of  the  word.  You  imagine,  you  invent,  a  course 
of  proceeding  which  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of 
any  Hving  man  under  the  canopy  of  heaven;  and  then 
you  invoke  the  aid  of  constraint  and  prohibition.  It 
is  quite  necessary  that  you  should  have  recourse  to  force, 
for  you  desire  that  men  should  be  made  to  produce  those 
things  which  they  find  it  more  advantageous  to  buy; 
you  desire  that  they  should  renounce  this  advantage, 
and  act  upon  a  doctrine  which  implies  a  contradiction 
in  terms. 

I  defy  you  to  take  the  doctrine,  which  you  acknowledge 
would  be  absurd  in  the  relations  of  individuals,  and  extend 
it,  even  in  speculation,  to  transactions  between  families, 
communities,  or  provinces.  By  your  own  admission  it 
is  only  applicable  to  international  relations. 

This  is  the  reason  why  you  are  forced  to  keep  re- 
peating :  — 

**  There  are  no  absolute  principles,  no  inflexible  rules. 
What  is  good  for  an  individual,  a  family,  a  province, 
is  had  for  a  nation.  What  is  good  in  detail — namely, 
to  purchase  rather  than  produce,  when  purchasing  is  more 
advantageous  than  producing — that  same  is  had  in  the 
gross.  The  political  economy  of  individuals  is  not  that 
of  nations";  and  other  nonsense  of  the  same  kind. 

And  to  what  does  all  this  tend?  Look  at  it  a  little 
closer.  The  intention  is  to  prove  that  we,  the  consumers, 
are  your  property  ! — that  we  are  yours  body  and  soul ! — 
that  you  have  an  exclusive  right  over  our  stomachs  and 
our  limbs  ! — that  it  belongs  to  you  to  feed  and  clothe  us 
on  your  own  terms,  whatever  be  your  ignorance,  incapacity 
or  rapacity  ! 

No,  you  are  not  men  of  practice;  you  are  men  of 
abstraction — and  of  extortion. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CONFLICT    OF    PRINCIPLES 

There  is  one  thing  which  confounds  me ;  and  it  is  this : 

Sincere  publicists,  studying  the  economy  of  society  from 
the  producer's  point  of  view,  have  laid  down  this  double 
formula : 

"Governments  should  order  the  interests  of  consumers 
who  are  subject  to  their  laws,  in  such  a  way  as  to  be 
favourable  to  national  industry. 

"They  should  bring  distant  consumers  under  subjection 
to  their  laws,  for  the  purpose  of  ordering  their  interests 
in  a  way  favourable  to  national  industry." 

The  first  of  these  formulas  gets  the  name  of  protection ; 
the  second  we  call  debouches,  or  the  creating  of  markets, 
or  vents,  for  our  produce. 

Both  are  founded  on  what  we  call  the  Balance  of 
Trade : 

"A  nation  is  impoverished  when  it  imports;  enriched 
when  it  exports." 

For  if  every  purchase  from  a  foreign  country  is  a 
tribute  paid  and  a  national  loss,  it  follows,  of  course,  that 
it  is  right  to  restrain,  and  even  prohibit,  importations. 

And  if  every  sale  to  a  foreign  country  is  a  tribute  re- 
ceived, and  a  national  profit,  it  is  quite  right  and  natural 
to  create  markets  for  our  products  even  by  force. 

The  system  of  protection  and  the  colonial  system  are, 

then,  only  two  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  theory.     To 

hinder  our  fellow-citizens  from  buying  from  foreigners, 

and  to  force  foreigners  to  buy  from  our  fellow-citizens, 

are  only  two  consequences  of  one  and  the  same  principle. 

92 


CONFLICT    OF    PRINCIPLES  93 

Now,  it  is  impossible  not  to  admit  that  this  doctrine,  if 
true,  makes  general  utility  to  repose  on  monopoly  or  in- 
ternal spoliation,  and  on  conquest  or  external  spoliation. 

I  enter  a  cottage  on  the  French  side  of  the  Pyrenees. 

The  father  of  the  family  has  received  but  slender  wages. 
His  half-naked  children  shiver  in  the  icy  north  wind;  the 
fire  is  extinguished,  and  there  is  nothing  on  the  table. 
There  are  wool,  firewood,  and  corn  on  the  other  side  of 
the  mountain ;  but  these  good  things  are  forbidden  to  the 
poor  day-labourer,  for  the  other  side  of  the  mountain  is  not 
in  France.  Foreign  firewood  is  not  allowed  to  warm  the 
cottage  hearth;  and  the  shepherd's  children  can  never 
know  the  taste  of  Biscayan  corn,^  and  the  wool  of  Navarre 
can  never  warm  their  benumbed  limbs.  General  utility 
has  so  ordered  it.  Be  it  so;  but  let  us  agree  that  all  this 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  first  principles  of  justice.  To 
dispose  legislatively  of  the  interests  of  consumers,  and 
postpone  them  to  the  supposed  interests  of  national  in- 
dustry, is  to  encroach  upon  their  liberty — it  is  to  prohibit 
an  act;  namely,  the  act  of  exchange,  which  has  in  it 
nothing  contrary  to  good  morals;  in  a  word,  it  is  to  do 
them  an  act  of  injustice. 

And  yet  this  is  necessary,  we  are  told,  unless  we  wish 
to  see  national  labour  at  a  standstill,  and  public  prosperity 
sustain  a  fatal  shock. 

Writers  of  the  protectionist  school,  then,  have  arrived 
at  the  melancholy  conclusion  that  there  is  a  radical  incom- 
patibility between  Justice  and  Utility. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  the  interest  of  each  nation 
to  sell,  and  not  to  buy,  the  natural  state  of  their  relations 
must  consist  in  a  violent  action  and  reaction,  for  each  will 
seek  to  impose  its  products  on  all,  and  all  will  endeavour 
to  repel  the  products  of  each. 

^  The   French  word  employed  is   miture,   probably  a   Spanish  word 
Gallicised — mestura,  meslin,  mixed  corn,  as  wheat  and  rye. — Translatoe. 


94  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

A  sale,  in  fact,  implies  a  purchase,  and  since,  accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine,  to  sell  is  beneficial,  and  to  buy  is  the 
reverse,  every  international  transaction  would  imply  the 
amelioration  of  one  people  and  the  deterioration  of  another. 

But  if  men  are,  on  the  one  hand,  irresistibly  impelled 
towards  what  is  for  their  profit,  and  if,  on  the  other,  they 
resist  instinctively  what  is  hurtful,  we  are  forced  to  con- 
clude that  each  nation  carries  in  its  bosom  a  natural 
force  of  expansion,  and  a  not  less  natural  force  of  resist- 
ance, which  forces  are  equally  injurious  to  all  other 
nations;  or,  in  other  words,  that  antagonism  and  war  are 
the  natural  state  of  human  society. 

Thus  the  theory  we  are  discussing  may  be  summed  up 
in  these  two  axioms  : 

Utility  is  incompatible  with  Justice  at  home. 

Utility  is  incompatible  with  Peace  abroad. 

Now,  what  astonishes  and  confounds  me  is,  that  a 
publicist,  a  statesman,  who  sincerely  holds  an  economical 
doctrine  which  runs  so  violently  counter  to  other  principles 
which  are  incontestable,  should  be  able  to  enjoy  one 
moment  of  calm  or  peace  of  mind. 

For  my  own  part,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  I  had  entered 
the  precincts  of  the  science  by  the  same  gate,  if  I  had 
failed  to  perceive  clearly  that  Liberty,  Utility,  Justice, 
Peace,  are  things  not  only  compatible,  but  strictly  allied 
with  each  other,  and,  so  to  speak,  identical,  I  should  have 
endeavoured  to  forget  what  I  had  learned,  and  I  should 
have  asked  : 

"How  God  could  have  willed  that  men  should  attain 
prosperity  only  through  Injustice  and  War?  How  He 
could  have  willed  that  they  should  be  unable  to  avoid 
Injustice  and  War  except  by  renouncing  the  possibility 
of  attaining  prosperity  ? 

"  Dare  I  adopt,  as  the  basis  of  the  legislation  of  a  great 
nation,  a  science  which  thus  misleads  me  by  false  lights, 


CONFLICT    OF    PRINCIPLES  95 

which  has  conducted  me  to  this  horrible  blasphemy,  and 
landed  me  in  so  dreadful  an  alternative?  And  when  a 
long  train  of  illustrious  philosophers  have  been  conducted 
by  this  science,  to  which  they  have  devoted  their  lives,  to 
more  consoling  results — when  they  affirm  that  Liberty  and 
Utility  are  perfectly  reconcilable  with  Justice  and  Peace — 
that  all  these  great  principles  run  in  infinitely  extended 
parallels,  and  will  do  so  to  all  eternity,  without  running 
counter  to  each  other — I  would  ask,  Have  they  not  in  their 
favour  that  presumption  which  results  from  all  that  we  know 
of  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  God,  as  manifested  in  the 
sublime  harmony  of  the  material  creation  ?  In  the  face 
of  such  a  presumption,  and  of  so  many  reliable  authorities, 
ought  I  to  believe  lightly  that  God  has  been  pleased  to 
implant  antagonism  and  dissonance  in  the  laws  of  the 
moral  world?  No;  before  I  should  venture  to  conclude 
that  the  principles  of  social  order  run  counter  to  and 
neutralise  each  other,  and  are  in  eternal  and  irreconcilable 
opposition — before  I  should  venture  to  impose  on  my 
fellow-citizens  a  system  so  impious  as  that  to  which  my 
reasonings  would  appear  to  lead — I  should  set  myself  to 
re-examine  the  whole  chain  of  these  reasonings,  and  assure 
myself  that  at  this  stage  of  the  journey  I  had  not  missed 
my  way." 

But  if,  after  a  candid  and  searching  examination, 
twenty  times  repeated,  I  arrived  always  at  this  frightful 
conclusion,  that  we  must  choose  between  the  Right  and 
the  Good,  discouraged,  I  should  reject  the  science,  and 
bury  myself  in  voluntary  ignorance;  above  all,  I  should 
decline  all  participation  in  public  affairs,  leaving  to  men 
of  another  temper  and  constitution  the  burden  and  re- 
sponsibility of  a  choice  so  painful. 

See  also  ch.  xviii.  and  xx.,  pp.  103,  no;   also  the  letter  to  Thiers, 
Collected  Works,  vol.  iv.,  p.  504. — FRENCH  EDITOR. 


CHAPTER    XV 

RECIPROCITY  AGAIN 

M.  DE  Saint-Cricq  inquires:  "Whether  it  is  certain  that 
the  foreigner  will  buy  from  us  as  much  as  he  sells  ?  " 

M.  de  Dombasle  asks :  "  .What  reason  we  have  to 
believe  that  English  producers  will  take  from  us,  rather 
than  from  some  other  country  of  the  world,  the  com- 
modities they  have  need  of,  and  an  amount  of  com- 
modities equivalent  in  value  to  that  of  their  exports  to 
France  ?  " 

I  wonder  how  so  many  men  who  call  themselves 
practical  men  should  have  all  reasoned  without  reference 
to  practice  ! 

In  practice,  does  a  single  exchange  take  place,  out  of 
a  hundred,  out  of  a  thousand,  out  of  ten  thousand,  per- 
haps, which  represents  the  direct  barter  of  commodity  for 
commodity?  Never  since  the  introduction  of  money  has 
any  agriculturist  said :  I  want  to  buy  shoes,  hats,  advice, 
lessons ;  but  only  from  the  shoemaker,  the  hat-maker,  the 
lawyer,  the  professor,  who  will  purchase  from  me  corn  to 
an  exactly  equivalent  value.  And  why  should  nations 
bring  each  other  under  a  yoke  of  this  kind  ? 

Practically  how  are  such  matters  transacted  ? 

Let  us  suppose  a  people  shut  out  from  external  rela- 
tions. A  man,  we  will  suppose,  produces  wheat.  He 
sends  it  to  the  home  market,  and  offers  it  for  the  highest 
price  he  can  obtain.  He  receives  in  exchange — what? 
Coins,  which  are  just  so  many  drafts  or  orders,  varying 
very  much  in  amount,  by  means  of  which  he  can  draw, 

in  his  turn,  from  the  national  stores,  when  he  judges  it 

96 


I 

I 


RECIPROCITY    AGAIN  97 

proper,  and  subject  to  due  competition,  everything  which 
he  may  want  or  desire.  Ultimately,  and  at  the  end  of 
the  operation,  he  will  have  drawn  from  the  mass  the  exact 
equivalent  of  what  he  has  contributed  to  it,  and,  in  value, 
his  consumption  will  exactly  equal  his  production. 

If  the  exchanges  of  the  supposed  nation  with  foreigners 
are  left  free,  it  is  no  longer  to  the  national,  but  to  the 
general,  market  that  each  sends  his  contributions,  and,  in 
turn,  derives  his  supplies  for  consumption.  He  has  no 
need  to  care  whether  what  he  sends  into  the  market  of  the 
world  is  purchased  by  a  fellow-countryman  or  by  a 
foreigner;  whether  the  drafts  or  orders  he  receives  come 
from  a  Frenchman  or  an  Englishman ;  whether  the  com- 
modities for  which  he  afterwards  exchanges  these  drafts 
or  orders  are  produced  on  this  or  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Rhine  or  the  Pyrenees.  There  is  always  in  each  in- 
dividual case  an  exact  balance  between  what  is  contributed 
and  what  is  received,  between  what  is  poured  into  and 
what  is  drawn  out  of  the  great  common  reservoir;  and  if 
this  is  true  of  each  individual  it  is  true  of  the  nation  at 
large. 

The  only  difference  between  the  two  cases  is,  that  in 
the  last  each  has  to  face  a  more  extended  market  both  a^ 
regards  sales  and  purchases,  and  has  consequently  more 
chances  of  transacting  both  advantageously. 

This  objection  may  perhaps  be  urged :  If  everybody 
enters  into  a  league  not  to  take  from  the  general  mass  the 
commodities  of  a  certain  individual,  that  individual  cannot, 
in  his  turn,  obtain  from  the  mass  what  he  is  in  want  of. 
It  is  the  same  of  nations. 

The  reply  to  this  is,  that  if  a  nation  cannot  obtain  what 
it  has  need  of  in  the  general  market,  it  will  no  longer 
contribute  anything  to  that  market.  It  will  work  for  itself. 
It  will  be  forced  in  that  case  to  submit  to  what  you  want 
to  impose  on  it  beforehand— i^o/atiow. 


98  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

And  this  will  realise  the  ideal  of  the  prohibitive 
system. 

Is  it  not  amusing  to  think  that  you  inflict  upon  the 
nation,  now  and  beforehand,  this  very  system,  from  a 
fear  that  it  might  otherwise  run  the  risk  of  arriving  at 
it  independently  of  your  exertions? 


CHAPTER    XVI 

OBSTRUCTED   NAVIGATION    PLEADING    FOR   THE 
PROHIBITIONISTS 

Some  years  ago  I  happened  to  be  at  Madrid,  and  went 
to  the  Cortes.  The  subject  of  debate  was  a  proposed  treaty 
with  Portugal  for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Douro. 
One  of  the  deputies  rose  and  said  :  "  If  the  navigation  of 
the  Douro  is  improved  in  the  way  now  proposed,  the 
traffic  will  be  carried  on  at  less  expense.  The  grain  of 
Portugal  will,  in  consequence,  be  sold  in  the  markets  of 
Castile  at  a  lower  price,  and  will  become  a  formidable 
rival  to  our  national  hidustry.  I  oppose  the  project, 
unless,  indeed,  our  ministers  will  undertake  to  raise  the 
tariff  of  customs  to  the  extent  required  to  re-establish 
the  equilibrium."  The  Assembly  found  the  argument 
unanswerable. 

Three  months  afterwards  I  was  at  Lisbon.  The  same 
question  was  discussed  in  the  Senate.  A  noble  hidalgo 
made  a  speech  :  "Mr.  President,"  he  said,  "this  project  is 
absurd.  You  place  guards,  at  great  expense,  along  the 
banks  of  the  Douro  to  prevent  Portugal  being  invaded  by 
Castilian  grain ;  and  at  the  same  time  you  propose,  also 
at  great  expense,  to  facilitate  that  invasion.  This  is  a 
piece  of  inconsistency  to  which  I  cannot  assent.  Let  us 
leave  the  Douro  to  our  children,  as  it  has  come  to  us 
from  our  fathers." 

Afterwards,  when  the  subject  of  improving  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  Garonne  was  discussed,  I  remembered  the 
arguments  of  the  Iberian  orators,  and  I  said  to  myself  : 
If  the  Toulouse  deputies  were  as  good  economists  as  the 

99 


100  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

Spanish  deputies,  and  the  representatives  of  Bordeaux  as 
acute  logicians  as  those  of  Oporto,  assuredly  they  would 
leave  the  Garonne 

"  Dormir  au  bruit  flatteur  de  son  onde  naissante ;  ** 

for  the  canalisation  of  the  Garonne  would  favour  the 
invasion  of  Toulouse  products,  to  the  prejudice  of  Bor- 
deaux, and  the  inundation  of  Bordeaux  products  would 
do  the  same  thing  to  the  detriment  of  Toulouse. 


CHAPTER    XVII 

A  NEGATIVE  RAILWAY 

I  HAVE  said  that  when,  unfortunately,  one  has  regard  to 
the  interest  of  the  producer,  and  not  to  that  of  the  con- 
sumer, it  is  impossible  to  avoid  running  counter  to  the 
general  interest,  because  the  demand  of  the  producer,  as 
such,  is  only  for  efforts,  wants,  and  obstacles. 

I  find  a  remarkable  illustration  of  this  in  a  Bordeaux 
newspaper. 

M.  Simiot  proposes  this  question  : 

Should  the  proposed  railway  from  Paris  to  Madrid 
offer  a  break  of  continuity  at  Bordeaux? 

He  answers  the  question  in  the  affirmative,  and  gives 
a  multiplicity  of  reasons,  which  I  shall  not  stop  to  examine, 
except  this  one  : 

The  railway  from  Paris  to  Bayonne  should  have  a 
break  at  Bordeaux,  for  if  goods  and  passengers  are  forced 
to  stop  at  that  town,  profits  will  accrue  to  bargemen, 
porters,  commissionaires,  hotel-keepers,  etc. 

Here  we  have  clearly  the  interest  of  labour  put  before 
the  interest  of  consumers. 

But  if  Bordeaux  has  a  right  to  profit  by  a  gap  in  the 
line  of  railway,  and  if  such  profit  is  consistent  with  the 
public  interest,  then  Angoul^me,  Poitiers,  Tours,  Orleans, 
nay,  more,  all  the  intermediate  places,  Ruffec,  Chatel- 
lerault,  etc.,  should  also  demand  gaps,  as  being  for  the 
general  interest,  and,  of  course,  for  the  interest  of  national 
industry;  for  the  more  these  breaks  in  the  line  are  multi- 
plied, the  greater  will  be  the  increase  of  consignments, 
commissions,  transhipments,  etc.,  along  the  whole  extent 


102  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

of  the  railway:  In  tHis  way,  we  shall  succeed  in  having 
a  fine  of  r^tlway  composed  of  successive  gaps,  and  which 
may  be  denominated  a  Negative  Railway. 

Let  the  protectionists  say  what  they  will,  it  is  not  the 
less  certain  that  the  principle  of  restriction  is  the  very  same 
as  the  principle  of  gaps;  the  sacrifice  of  the  consumer's 
interest  to  that  of  the  producer — in  other  words,  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  end  to  the  means. 


CHAPTER    XVIII 

THERE   ARE  NO   ABSOLUTE   PRINCIPLES 

We  cannot  wonder  enough  at  the  facility  with  which 
men  resign  themselves  to  continue  ignorant  of  what  it 
is  most  important  that  they  should  know ;  and  we  may 
be  certain  that  such  ignorance  is  incorrigible  in  those 
who  venture  to  proclaim  this  axiom :  There  are  no 
absolute  principles. 

You  enter  the  legislative  precincts.  The  subject  of 
debate  is  whether  the  law  should  prohibit  international 
exchanges,  or  proclaim  freedom. 

A  deputy  rises,  and  says:  — 

If  you  tolerate  these  exchanges  the  foreigner  will 
inundate  you  with  his  products :  England  with  her 
textile  fabrics,  Belgium  with  coals,  Spain  with  wools, 
Italy  with  silks,  Switzerland  with  cattle,  Sweden  with 
iron,  Prussia  with  corn ;  so  that  home  industry  will  no 
longer  be  possible. 

Another  replies:  — 

If  you  prohibit  international  exchanges  the  various 
bounties  which  nature  has  lavished  on  different  climates 
will  be  for  you  as  if  they  did  not  exist.  You  cannot 
participate  in  the  mechanical  skill  of  the  English,  in  the 
wealth  of  the  Belgian  mines,  in  the  fertility  of  the  Polish 
soil,  in  the  luxuriance  of  the  Swiss  pastures,  in  the 
cheapness  of  Spanish  labour,  in  the  warmth  of  the  Italian 
climate;  and  you  must  obtain  from  an  unprofitable  and 
misdirected  production  those  commodities  which,  through 
exchange,  would  have  been  furnished  to  you  by  an  easy 
production. 

103 


104  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

Assuredly,  one  of  these  deputies  must  be  wrong.  But 
which  ?  We  must  take  care  to  make  no  mistake  on  the 
subject,  for  this  is  not  a  matter  of  abstract  opinion  merely. 
You  have  to  choose  between  two  roads,  and  one  of  them 
leads  necessarily  to  poverty. 

To  get  rid  of  the  dilemma  we  are  told  that  there  are 
no  absolute  principles. 

This  axiom,  which  is  so  much  in  fashion  nowadays, 
not  only  countenances  indolence,  but  ministers  to  am- 
bition. 

If  the  theory  of  prohibition  comes  to  prevail,  or  if 
the  doctrine  of  Free  Trade  comes  to  triumph,  one  brief 
enactment  will  constitute  our  whole  economic  code.  In 
the  first  case,  the  law  will  proclaim  that  all  exchanges 
with  foreign  ^countries  are  prohibited ;  in  the  second,  that 
all  exchanges  with  foreign  countries  are  free;  and  many 
grand  and  distinguished  personages  will  thereby  lose 
their  importance. 

But  if  exchange  does  not  possess  a  character  which 
is  peculiar  to  it;  if  it  is  not  governed  by  any  natural 
law ;  if,  capriciously,  it  be  sometimes  useful  and  some- 
times detrimental ;  if  it  does  not  find  its  motive  force  in 
the  good  which  it  accomplishes,  its  limit  in  the  good 
which  it  ceases  to  accomplish ;  if  its  consequences  cannot 
be  estimated  by  those  who  effect  exchanges — in  a  word, 
if  there  be  no  absolute  principles,  then  we  must  proceed 
to  weigh,  balance,  and  regulate  transactions,  we  must 
equalise  the  conditions  of  labour,  and  try  to  find  out  the 
average  rate  of  profits — a  colossal  task,  well  deserving 
the  large  emoluments  and  powerful  influence  awarded  to 
those  who  undertake  it. 

On  entering  Paris,  which  I  had  come  to  visit,  I  said 
to  myself — Here  are  a  million  of  human  beings  who  would 
all  die  in  a  short  time  if  provisions  of  every  kind  ceased 
to   flow  towards   this   great   metropolis.     Imagination    is 


NO   ABSOLUTE    PRINCIPLES  105 

baffled  when  it  tries  to  appreciate  the  vast  multiplicity 
of  commodities  which  must  enter  to-morrow  through  the 
barriers  in  order  to  preserve  the  inhabitants  from  falling 
a  prey  to  the  convulsions  of  famine,  rebellion  and  pillage. 
And  yet  all  sleep  at  this  moment,  and  their  peaceful 
slumbers  are  not  disturbed  for  a  single  instant  by  the 
prospect  of  such  a  frightful  catastrophe.  On  the  other 
hand,  eighty  departments  have  been  labouring  to-day, 
without  concert,  without  any  mutual  understanding,  for 
the  provisioning  of  Paris.  How  does  each  succeeding 
day  bring  what  is  wanted,  nothing  more,  nothing  less, 
to  so  gigantic  a  market?  What,  then,  is  the  ingenious 
and  secret  power  which  governs  the  astonishing  regularity 
of  movements  so  complicated,  a  regularity  in  which  every- 
body has  implicit  faith,  although  happiness  and  life  itself 
are  at  stake?  That  power  is  an  absolute  principle,  the 
principle  of  freedom  in  transactions.  We  have  faith  in 
that  inward  light  which  Providence  has  placed  in  the 
heart  of  all  men,  and  to  which  He  has  confided  the 
preservation  and  indefinite  amelioration  of  our  species, 
namely,  a  regard  to  personal  interest — since  we  must 
give  it  its  right  name — a  principle  so  active,  so  vigilant, 
so  foreseeing,  when  it  is  free  in  its  action.  In  what 
situation,  I  would  ask,  would  the  inhabitants  of  Paris 
be  if  a  minister  should  take  it  into  his  head  to  sub- 
stitute for  this  power  the  combinations  of  his  own  genius, 
however  superior  we  might  suppose  them  to  be — if  he 
thought  to  subject  to  his  supreme  direction  this  pro- 
digious mechanism,  to  hold  the  springs  of  it  in  his  hands, 
to  decide  by  whom,  or  in  what  manner,  or  on  what 
conditions,  everything  needed  should  be  produced,  trans- 
ported, exchanged  and  consumed?  Truly,  there  may  be 
much  suffering  within  the  walls  of  Paris — poverty,  despair, 
perhaps  starvation,  causing  more  tears  to  flow  than  ardent 
charity  is  able  to  dry  up;  but  I  affirm  that  it  is  probable, 


io6  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

nay,  that  it  is  certain,  that  the  arbitrary  intervention  of 
government  would  multiply  infinitely  those  sufferings,  and 
spread  over  all  our  fellow-citizens  those  evils  which  at 
present  affect  only  a  small  number  of  them. 

This  faith,  then,  which  we  repose  in  a  principle,  when 
the  question  relates  only  to  our  home  transactions,  why 
should  we  not  retain  when  the  same  principle  is  applied 
to  our  international  transactions,  which  are  undoubtedly 
less  numerous,  less  delicate,  and  less  complicated?  And 
if  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  municipality  should  regulate 
our  Parisian  industries,  weigh  our  chances,  balance  our 
profits  and  losses,  see  that  our  circulating  medium  is 
not  exhausted,  and  equalise  the  conditions  of  our  home 
labour,  why  should  it  be  necessary  that  the  customhouse, 
departing  from  its  fiscal  duties,  should  pretend  to  exercise 
a  protective  action  over  our  external  commerce?^ 

*  See  the  first  letter  to  Lamartine,  Collected  Works,  vol.  i,,  p.  406; 
also  Harmonies  Economiques,  ch.   i. — Fken'CH  Editor. 


CHAPTER    XIX 

NATIONAL    INDEPENDENCE 

Among  the  arguments  which  we  hear  adduced  in  favour 
of  the  restrictive  regime  we  must  not  forget  that  which 
is  founded  on  national  independence, 

**  What  should  we  do  in  case  of  war,"  it  is  said,  **  if 
we  are  placed  at  the  mercy  of  England  for  iron  and 
coal?" 

English  monopolists  do  not  fail  to  cry  out  in  their 
turn  : — 

**  What  would  become  of  Great  Britain  in  case  of  war 
if  she  is  dependent  on  France  for  provisions?" 

One  thing  is  overlooked,  which  is  this :  That  the 
kind  of  dependence  which  results  from  exchange,  from 
commercial  transactions,  is  a  reciprocal  dependence.  We 
cannot  be  dependent  on  the  foreigner  without  the  foreigner 
being  dependent  on  us.  Now,  this  is  the  very  essence 
of  society.  To  break  up  natural  relations  is  not  to  place 
ourselves  in  a  state  of  independence,  but  in  a  state  of 
isolation. 

Remark  this :  A  nation  isolates  itself  looking  forward 
to  the  possibility  of  war;  but  is  not  this  very  act  of 
isolating  itself  the  beginning  of  war?  It  renders  w^ar 
more  easy,  less  burdensome,  and,  it  may  be,  less  un- 
popular. Let  countries  be  permanent  markets  for  each 
other's  produce;  let  their  reciprocal  relations  be  such  that 
they  cannot  be  broken  without  inflicting  on  each  other 
the  double  suffering  of  privation  and  a  glut  of  commo- 
dities;   and  they  will   no  longer  stand  in   need  of  naval 

armaments,    which    ruin    them,    and    overgrown    armies, 

107 


io8  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

which  crush  them ;  the  peace  of  the  world  will  not  then 
be  compromised  by  the  caprice  of  a  Thiers  or  of  a 
Palmerston ;  and  war  will  disappear  for  want  of  what 
supports  it,  for  want  of  resources,  inducements,  pretexts, 
and  popular  sympathy. 

I  am  quite  aware  that  I  shall  be  reproached  (it  is 
the  fashion  of  the  day)  with  basing  the  fraternity  of 
nations  on  men's  per'sonal  interest — vile,  prosaic  self- 
interest.  Better  far,  it  may  be  thought,  that  it  should 
have  had  its  basis  in  charity,  in  love,  even  in  a  little 
self-abnegation,  and  that,  interfering  somewhat  with 
men's  material  comforts,  it  should  have  had  the  merit 
of  a  generous  sacrifice. 

When  shall  we  be  done  with  these  puerile  declama- 
tions? When  will  hypocrisy  be  finally  banished  from 
science?  When  shall  we  cease  to  exhibit  this  nauseous 
contradiction  between  our  professions  and  our  practice? 
We  hoot  at  and  execrate  personal  interest;  in  other  words, 
we  denounce  what  is  useful  and  good  (for  to  say  that 
all  men  are  interested  in  anything  is  to  say  that  the  thing 
is  good  in  itself),  as  if  personal  interest  were  not  the 
necessary,  eternal  and  indestructible  mainspring  to  which 
Providence,  has  confided  human  perfectibility.  Are  we 
not  represented  as  being  all  angels  of  disinterestedness  ? 
And  does  the  thought  never  occur  to  those  who  say  so 
that  the  public  begins  to  see  with  disgust  that  this 
affected  language  disfigures  the  pages  of  those  very 
writers  who  are  most  successful  in  filling  their  own 
pockets  at  the  public  expense  ?  Oh  !  affectation  !  affec- 
tation !  thou  art  verily  the  besetting  sin  of  our  times  ! 

What !  because  material  prosperity  and  peace  are 
things  correlative,  because  it  has  pleased  God  to  establish 
this  beautiful  harmony  in  the  moral  world,  am  I  not  to 
admire,  am  I  not  to  adore  His  ordinances,  am  I  not  to 
accept  with  gratitude  laws  which  make  justice  the  con- 


NATIONAL    INDEPENDENCE  109 

dition  of  happiness?  You  desire  peace  only  in  as  far 
as  it  runs  counter  to  material  prosperity;  and  liberty  is 
rejected  because  it  does  not  impose  sacrifices.  If  abnega- 
tion has  indeed  so  many  charms  for  you,  why  do  you 
fail  to  practise  it  in  private  life?  Society  will  be  grateful 
to  you,  for  someone,  at  least,  will  reap  the  fruit;  but  to 
desire  to  impose  it  upon  mankind  as  a  principle  is  the 
very  height  of  absurdity,  for  the  abnegation  of  all  is  the 
sacrifice  of  all,  which  is  evil  erected  into  a  theory. 

But,  thank  Heaven,  one  can  write  or  read  many  of 
these  declamations  without  the  world  ceasing  on  that 
account  to  obey  the  social  motive  force,  which  leads  us 
to  shun  evil  and  seek  after  good,  and  which,  whether 
they  like  it  or  not,  we  must  denominate  personal  interest. 

After  all,  it  is  singular  enough  to  see  sentiments  of 
the  most  sublime  self-denial  invoked  in  support  of  spolia- 
tion itself.  See  to  what  this  boasted  disinterestedness 
tends  !  These  men  who  are  so  fantastically  delicate  as 
not  to  desire  peace  itself,  if  it  is  founded  on  the  vile 
interest  of  mankind,  put  their  hand  into  the  pockets  of 
others,  and  especially  of  the  poor.  For  what  article  of 
the  tariff  protects  the  poor?  Be  pleased,  gentlemen,  to 
dispose  of  what  belongs  to  yourselves  as  you  think  proper, 
but  leave  us  the  disposal  of  the  fruit  of  our  own  toil,  to 
use  it  or  exchange  it  as  we  see  best.  Declaim  on  self- 
sacrifice  as  much  as  you  choose,  it  is  all  very  fine  and 
very  beautiful,  but  be  at  least  consistent." 

^  See  Justice  and  Fraternity,  Collected  Works,  vol.  iv.,  p.  298;  also 
introduction  to  Cobden  and  the  League  and  the  Second  Camfaign  of 
the  League,  Collected  Works,  vol.  iii. — French  Editor. 


CHAPTER   XX 

HUMAN   LABOUR — NATIONAL   L\BOUR 

Machine-breaking — prohibition  of  foreign  commodities — 
are  two  acts  founded  on  the  same  doctrine. 

We  see  men  who  clap  their  hands  when  a  great  in- 
vention is  introduced,  and  who  nevertheless  adhere  to 
the  protectionist  system.  Such  men  are  grossly  incon- 
sistent I 

With  what  do  they  reproach  free  trade?  With  en- 
couraging the  production  by  foreigners,  more  skilled  or 
more  favourably  situated  than  we  are,  of  commodities 
which,  but  for  free  trade,  would  be  produced  at  home.  In 
a  word,  they  accuse  free  trade  of  being  injurious  to  national 
labour? 

For  the  same  reason,  should  they  not  reproach 
machinery  with  accomplishing  by  natural  agents  what 
otherwise  would  have  been  done  by  manual  labour,  and 
so  of  being  injurious  to  human  labour? 

The  foreign  workman,  better  and  more  favourably 
situated  than  the  home  workman  for  the  production  of 
certain  commodities,  is,  with  reference  to  the  latter,  a 
veritable  economic  machine,  crushing  him  by  competition. 
In  like  manner,  machinery,  which  executes  a  piece  of  work 
at  a  lower  price  than  a  certain  number  of  men  could  do  by 
manual  labour,  is,  in  relation  to  these  manual  labourers, 
a  veritable  foreign  competitor,  who  paralyses  them  by  his 
rivalry. 

If,  then,  it  is  politic  to  protect  national  labour  against 
the  competition  of  foreign  labour,  it  is  not  less  so  to  protect 
human  labour  against  the  rivalry  of  mechanical  labour. 


HUMAN  LABOUR— NATIONAL  LABOUR     in 

Thus,  every  adherent  of  the  system  of  protection,  if 
he  is  logical,  should  not  content  himself  with  prohibiting 
foreign  products ;  he  should  proscribe  also  the  products  of 
the  shuttle  and  the  plough. 

And  this  is  the  reason  why  I  like  better  the  logic  of 
those  men  who,  declaiming  against  the  invasion  of  foreign 
merchandise,  declaim  likewise  against  the  excess  of  pro- 
duction which  is  due  to  the  inventive  power  of  the  human 
mind. 

Such  a  man  is  M.  de  Saint-Chamans.  "One  of  the 
strongest  arguments  against  free  trade,"  he  says,  "is  the 
too  extensive  employment  of  machinery,  for  many  work- 
men are  deprived  of  employment,  either  by  foreign  com- 
petition, which  lowers  the  price  of  our  manufactured 
goods,  or  by  instruments  which  take  the  place  of  men  in 
our  workshops."^ 

M.  de  Saint-Chamans  has  seen  clearly  the  analogy,  or, 
we  should  rather  say,  the  identity,  which  obtains  between 
imports  and  machinery.  For  this  reason,  he  proscribes 
both ;  and  it  is  really  agreeable  to  have  to  do  with  such 
intrepid  reasoners,  who,  even  when  wrong,  carry  out  their 
argument  to  its  logical  conclusion. 

But  here  is  the  mess  in  which  they  land  themselves  : 

If  it  be  true,  a  priori,  that  the  domain  of  invention  and 
that  of  labour  cannot  be  simultaneously  extended  but  at 
each  other's  expense,  it  must  be  in  those  countries  where 
machinery  most  abounds — in  Lancashire,  for  example — 
that  we  should  expect  to  find  the  fewest  workmen.  And  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  establish  the  fact  that  mechanical 
power  and  manual  labour  co-exist,  and  to  a  greater  extent, 
among  rich  nations  than  among  savages,  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable,  that  these  two  powers  do  not  exclude  each 
other. 

I    cannot   understand   how    any    thinking    being    can 

^  Du  Systkme  d'lmfdts,  p.  438. 


112  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

enjoy  a  moment's  repose  in  presence  of  the  following 
dilemma : 

Either  the  inventions  of  man  are  not  injurious  to 
manual  labour,  as  general  facts  attest,  since  there  are  more 
of  both  in  England  and  France  than  among  the  Hurons 
and  Cherokees,  and,  that  being  so,  I  am  on  a  wrong  road, 
though  I  know  neither  where  nor  when  I  missed  my  way ; 
at  all  events,  I  see  I  am  wrong,  and  I  should  commit  the 
crime  of  treason  to  humanity  were  I  to  introduce  my  error 
into  the  legislation  of  my  country  : 

Or  else,  the  discoveries  of  the  human  mind  limit  the 
amount  of  manual  labour,  as  special  facts  appear  to  indi- 
cate; for  I  see  every  day  some  machine  or  other  super- 
seding twenty  or  a  hundred  workmen ;  and  then  I  am 
forced  to  acknowledge  a  flagrant,  eternal,  and  incurable 
antithesis  between  the  intellectual  and  physical  powers  of 
man — between  his  progress  and  his  present  wellbeing; 
and  in  these  circumstances  I  am  forced  to  say  that  the 
Creator  of  man  might  have  endowed  him  with  reason,  or 
with  physical  strength,  with  moral  force,  or  with  brute 
force;  but  that  He  mocked  him  by  conferring  on  him,  at 
the  same  time,  faculties  which  are  destructive  of  each  other. 

The  difficulty  is  pressing  and  puzzling;  but  you  con- 
trive to  find  your  way  out  of  it  by  adopting  the  strange 
apophthegm  : 

In  political  economy  there  are  no  absolute  principles. 

In  plain  language,  this  means : 

"  I  know  not  whether  it  be  true  or  false ;  I  am  ignorant 
of  what  constitutes  general  good  or  evil.  I  give  myself 
no  trouble  about  that.  The  immediate  effect  of  each 
measure  upon  my  own  personal  interest  is  the  only  law 
which  I  can  consent  to  recognise." 

There  are  no  principles  !  You  might  as  well  say  there 
are  no  facts;  for  principles  are  merely  formulas  which 
classify  such  facts  as  are  well  established. 


HUMAN  LABOUR— NATIONAL  LABOUR     113 

Machinery,  and  the  importation  of  foreign  commodities, 
certainly  produce  effects.  These  effects  may  be  good  or 
bad;  on  that  there  may  be  difference  of  opinion.  But 
whatever  view  we  take  of  them,  it  is  reduced  to  a  formula, 
by  one  of  these  two  principles :  Machinery  is  a  good;  or, 
machinery  is  an  evil :  Importations  of  foreign  produce  are 
beneficial ;  or,  such  importations  are  hurtful.  But  to  assert 
that  there  are  no  principles,  certainly  exhibits  the  lowest 
degree  of  abasement  to  which  the  human  mind  can 
descend ;  and  I  confess  that  I  blush  for  my  country  when 
I  hear  such  a  monstrous  heresy  proclaimed  in  the  French 
Chambers,  and  with  their  assent ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  face 
and  with  the  assent  of  the  elite  of  our  fellow-citizens;  and 
this  in  order  to  justify  their  imposing  laws  upon  us  in  total 
ignorance  of  the  real  state  of  the  case. 

But  then  I  am  told  to  destroy  the  fallacy  by  proving 
that  machinery  is  not  hurtful  to  human  labour,  nor  the 
importation  of  foreign  products  to  national  labour. 

A  work  like  the  present  cannot  well  include  very  full 
or  complete  demonstrations.  My  design  is  rather  to  state 
difficulties  than  to  resolve  them ;  to  excite  reflection  rather 
than  to  satisfy  doubts.  No  conviction  makes  so  lasting  an 
impression  on  the  mind  as  that  which  it  works  out  for 
itself.  But  I  shall  endeavour  nevertheless  to  put  the  reader 
on  the  right  road. 

What  misleads  the  adversaries  of  machinery  and 
foreign  importations  is,  that  they  judge  of  them  by  their 
immediate  and  transitory  effects,  instead  of  following  them 
out  to  their  general  and  definite  consequences. 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  invention  and  employment 
of  an  ingenious  machine  is  to  render  superfluous,  for  the 
attainment  of  a  given  result,  a  certain  amount  of  manual 
labour.  But  its  action  does  not  stop  there.  For  the  very 
reason  that  the  desired  result  is  obtained  with  fewer  efforts, 
the  product  is  handed  over  to  the  public  at  a  lower  price ; 


114  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

and  the  aggregate  of  savings  thus  realised  by  all  pup 
chasers,  enables  them  to  procure  other  satisfactions;  that 
is  to  say,  to  encourage  manual  labour  in  general  to  exactly 
the  extent  of  the  manual  labour  which  has  been  saved  in 
the  special  branch  of  industry  which  has  been  recently  im- 
proved. So  that  the  level  of  labour  has  not  fallen,  while 
that  of  enjoyments  has  risen. 

Let  us  render  this  evident  by  an  example. 

Suppose  there  are  used  annually  in  this  country  ten 
millions  of  hats  at  15  shillings;  this  makes  the  sum  which 
goes  to  the  support  of  this  branch  of  industry  ;^7, 500,000 
sterling.     A  machine  is  invented  which  allows  these  hats 
to  be  manufactured  and  sold  at   10  shillings.     The  sum 
now  wanted  for  the  support  of  this  industry  is  reduced 
to  ;^5, 000,000,  provided  the  demand  is  not  augmented  by 
the  change.     But  the  remaining  sum  of  ;^2, 500,000  is  not 
by   this  change  withdrawn  from   the  support  of   human 
labour.     That  sum,  economised  by  the  purchasers  of  hats, 
will  enable  them  to  satisfy  other  wants,  and,  consequently, 
to  that  extent  will  go  to  remunerate  the  aggregate  industry 
of  the  country.     With  the  five  shillings  saved,  John  will 
purchase  a  pair  of  shoes,  James  a  book,  Jerome  a  piece  of 
furniture,  etc.     Human  labour,  taken  in  the  aggregate, 
will  continue,  then,  to  be  supported  and  encouraged  to  the 
extent  of  ;^7, 500,000;  but  this  sum  will  yield  the  same 
number  of  hats,  plus  all  the  satisfactions  and  enjoyments 
corresponding  to  ;^2, 500,000  that  the  employment  of  the 
machine  has  enabled  the  consumers  of  hats  to  save.     These 
additional  enjoyments  constitute  the  clear  profit  which  the 
country  will  have  derived  from  the  invention.     This  is  a 
free  gift,  a  tribute  which  human  genius  will  have  derived 
from  nature.     We  do  not  at  all  dispute  that  in  the  course 
of  the  transformation  a  certain  amount  of  labour  will  have 
been   displaced;  but  we  cannot  allow  that   it  has  been 
destroyed  or  diminished. 


I 


HUMAN  LABOUR— NATIONAL  LABOUR     115 

The  same  thing  holds  of  the  importation  of  foreign 
commodities.     Let  us  revert  to  our  former  hypothesis. 

The  country  manufactures  ten  milHons  of  hats,  of  which 
the  cost  price  was  15  shillings.  The  foreigner  sends 
similar  hats  to  our  market,  and  furnishes  them  at  10  shil- 
lings each.  I  maintain  that  the  national  labour  will  not  be 
thereby  diminished. 

For  it  must  produce  to  the  extent  of  ;£'5, 000,000  to 
enable  it  to  pay  for  10  millions  of  hats  at  10  shillings. 

And  then  there  remains  to  each  purchaser  five  shillings 
saved  on  each  hat,  or  in  all,  ;,{^2, 500,000,  which  will  be 
spent  on  other  enjoyments — that  is  to  say,  which  will  go 
to  support  labour  in  other  departments  of  industry. 

Then  the  aggregate  labour  of  the  country  will  remain 
what  it  was,  and  the  additional  enjoyments  represented 
by  ;£'2, 500,000  saved  upon  hats  will  form  the  clear  profit 
accruing  from  imports  under  the  system  of  free  trade. 

It  is  of  no  use  to  try  to  frighten  us  by  a  picture  of  the 
sufferings  which,  on  this  hypothesis,  the  displacement  of 
labour  will  entail. 

For,  if  the  prohibition  had  never  been  imposed,  the 
labour  would  have  found  its  natural  place  under  the 
ordinary  law  of  exchange,  and  no  displacement  would 
have  taken  place. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  prohibition  has  led  to  an 
artificial  and  unproductive  employment  of  labour,  it  is 
prohibition,  and  not  liberty,  which  is  to  blame  for  a  dis- 
placement which  is  inevitable  in  the  transition  from  what 
is  detrimental  to  what  is  beneficial. 

At  all  events,  let  no  one  pretend  that  because  an  abuse 
cannot  be  done  away  with,  without  inconvenience  to  those 
who  profit  by  it,  what  has  been  suffered  to  exist  for  a  time 
should  be  allowed  to  exist  for  ever. 


CHAPTER    XXI 

RAW    MATERIALS 

It  is  said  that  the  most  advantageous  of  all  branches 
of  trade  is  that  which  supplies  manufactured  commodities 
in  exchange  for  raw  materials.  For  these  raw  materials 
are  the  aliment  and  support  of  national  labour. 

Hence  the  conclusion  is  drawn  :  — 

That  the  best  law  of  customs  is  that  which  gives  the 
greatest  possible  facility  to  the  importation  of  raw 
materials,  and  which  throws  most  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  importing  finished  goods. 

There  is  no  fallacy  in  political  economy  more  widely 
disseminated  than  this.  It  is  cherished  not  only  by  the 
protectionist  school,  but  also,  and  above  all,  by  the  school 
which  dubs  itself  Liberal ;  and  it  is  unfortunate  that  it 
should  be  so,  for  what  can  be  more  injurious  to  a  good 
cause  than  that  it  should  be  at  the  same  time  vigorously 
attacked  and  feebly  defended? 

Commercial  liberty  is  likely  to  have  the  fate  of  liberty 
in  general;  it  will  only  find  a  place  in  the  statute  book 
after  it  has  taken  possession  of  men's  minds  and  con- 
victions. But  if  it  be  true  that  a  reform,  in  order  to  be 
solidly  established,  should  be  generally  understood,  it 
follows  that  nothing  can  so  much  retard  reform  as  that 
which  misleads  public  opinion.  And  what  is  more  cal- 
culated to  mislead  public  opinion  than  works  which,  in 
advocating  freedom,  invoke  aid  from  the  doctrines  of 
monopoly  ? 

Some  years  ago  three  of  the  great  towns  of  France — 
Lyons,    Bordeaux,    and    Havre — united    in   a   movement 

ii6 


I 


RAW   MATERIALS  117 

against  the  restrictive  regime.  All  Europe  was  stirred 
on  seeing  raised  what  they  took  for  the  banner  of  liberty. 
Alas  I  it  proved  to  be  also  the  banner  of  monopoly — of 
a  monopoly  a  little  more  niggardly  and  much  more  absurd 
than  that  of  which  they  seemed  to  desire  the  overthrow. 
By  the  aid  of  the  fallacy  which  I  have  just  endeavoured 
to  exposCj^  the  petitioners  did  nothing  more  than  repro- 
duce the  doctrine  of  protection  to  national  industry,  tacking 
to  it  an  additional  inconsistency. 

It  was,  in  fact,  nothing  else  than  the  system  of  pro- 
hibition.    Just  listen  to  M.  de  Saint-Cricq : — 

"  Labour  constitutes  the  wealth  of  a  nation,  because 
labour  alone  creates  those  material  objects  which  our 
wants  demand;  and  universal  ease  and  comfort  consist 
in  the  abundance  of  these  things.*'  So  much  for  the 
principle. 

"  But  this  abundance  must  be  produced  by  national 
labour.  If  it  were  the  result  of  foreign  labour,  national 
labour  would  be  immediately  brought  to  a  stand."  Here 
lies  the  error.     {See  the  preceding  chapter.) 

**  What  course  should  an  agricultural  and  manufactur- 
ing country  take  under  such  circumstances?  Reserve  its 
markets  for  the  products  of  its  own  soil  and  of  its  own 
industry."     Such  is  the  end  and  design. 

**  And  for  that  purpose  restrain  by  duties,  and,  if 
necessary,  prohibit  importation  of  the  products  of  the  soil 
and  industry  of  other  nations."     Such  are  the  means. 

Let  us  compare  this  system  with  that  which  the  Bor- 
deaux petition  advocates. 

Commodities  are  there  divided  into  three  classes  : — 

**  The  first  includes  provisions,  and  raw  materials  upon 
which  no  human  labour  has  been  bestowed.  In  principle^ 
a  wise  economy  would  demand  that  this  class  should  be 
free  of  duties."    Here  we  have  no  labour,  no  protection. 

"The  second  consists  of  products  which  have,  to  some 


ii8  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

extent,  been  prepared.  This  preparation  warrants  such 
products  being  charged  with  a  certain  amount  of  duty." 
Here  protection  begins,  because  here,  according  to  the 
petitioners,   begins  national  labour. 

**  The  third  comprises  goods  and  products  in  their 
finished  and  perfect  state.  These  contribute  nothing  to 
national  labour,  and  we  regard  this  class  as  the  most 
taxable."  Here  labour,  and  protection  along  with  it, 
reach  their  maximum. 

We  thus  see  that  the  petitioners  profess  their  belief 
in  the  doctrine  that  foreign  labour  is  injurious  to  national 
labour;  and  this  is  the  error  of  the  prohibitive  system. 

They  demand  that  the  home  market  should  be  reserved 
for  home  industry.  That  is  the  design  of  the  system  of 
prohibition. 

They  demand  that  foreign  labour  should  be  subjected 
to  restrictions  and  taxes.  These  are  the  means  employed 
by  the  system  of  prohibition. 

What  difference,  then,  can  we  possibly  discover  be- 
tween the  Bordeaux  petitioners  and  the  Corypheus  of 
restriction  ?  One  difference,  and  one  only  :  the  greater 
or  less  extension  given  to  the  word  labour. 

M.  de  Saint-Cricq  extends  it  to  everything,  and  so 
he  wishes  to  protect  all. 

"  Labour  constitutes  all  the  wealth  of  a  people,**  he 
says;  '*to  protect  agricultural  industry,  and  all  agri- 
cultural industry;  to  protect  manufacturing  industry,  and 
all  manufacturing  industry,  is  the  cry  which  should  never 
cease  to  be  heard  in  this  Chamber.'* 

The  Bordeaux  petitioners  take  no  labour  into  account 
but  that  of  the  manufacturers;  and  for  that  reason  they 
would  admit  them  to  the  benefits  of  protection. 

**  Raw  materials  are  commodities  upon  which  no 
human  labour  has  been  bestowed.  In  principle,  we 
should  not  tax   them.     Manufactured  products  can   no 


RAW   MATERIALS  119 

longer  serve   the  cause    of    national    industry,    and  we 
regard  them  as  the  best  subjects  for  taxation." 

It  is  not  our  business  in  this  place  to  inquire  whether 
protection  to  national  industry  is  reasonable.  M.  de 
Saint-Cricq  and  the  Bordeaux  gentlemen  are  at  one  upon 
this  point,  and,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  preceding 
chapters,  we  on  this  subject  differ  from  both. 

Our  present  business  is  to  discover  whether  it  is  by 
M.  de  Saint-Cricq,  or  by  the  Bordeaux  petitioners,  that 
the  word  labour  is  used  in  a  correct  sense. 

Now,  in  this  view  of  the  question,  we  think  that 
M.  de  Saint-Cricq  has  very  much  the  best  of  it;  and  to 
prove  this  w6  may  suppose  them  to  hold  some  such 
dialogue  as  the  following  : — 

M,  DE  Saint-Cricq:  You  grant  that  national  labour 
should  be  protected.  You  grant  that  the  products  of  no 
foreign  labour  can  be  introduced  into  our  market  without 
superseding  a  corresponding  amount  of  our  national 
labour.  Only  you  contend  that  there  are  a  multiplicity 
of  products  possessed  of  value  (for  they  sell),  but  upon 
which  no  human  labour  has  been  bestowed  [vierges  de 
tout  travail  humain].  And  you  enumerate,  among  other 
things,  corn,  flour,  meat,  cattle,  tallow,  salt,  iron,  copper, 
lead,  coal,  wool,  hides,  seeds,  etc. 

If  you  will  only  prove  to  me  that  the  value  of  these 
things  is  not  due  to  labour,  I  will  grant  that  it  is  useless 
to  protect  them. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  I  demonstrate  to  you  that 
there  is  as  much  labour  worked  up  in  100  francs  worth 
of  wool  as  in  100  francs  worth  of  textiles  fabrics,  you 
will  allow  that  the  one  is  as  worthy  of  protection  as  the 
other. 

Now,  why  is  this  sack  of  wool  worth  100  francs?  Is 
is  not  because  that  is  its  cost  price?  And  what  does  its 
cost  price  represent  but  the  aggregate  wages  of  all  the 


120  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

labour  and  profits  of  all  the  capital  which  have  contributed 
to  the  production  of  the  commodity  ? 

The  Bordeaux  Petitioners  :  Well,  perhaps  as  re- 
gards wool  you  may  be  right.  But  take  the  case  of  a 
sack  of  corn,  a  bar  of  iron,  a  hundredweight  of  coals — 
are  these  commodities  produced  by  labour?  Are  they  not 
created  by  nature? 

M.  de  Saint-Cricq  :  Undoubtedly  nature  creates  the 
elements  of  all  these  things,  but  it  is  labour  which  pro- 
duces the  value,  I  was  wrong  myself  in  saying  that 
labour  created  material  objects,  and  that  vicious  form  of 
expression  has  led  me  into  other  errors.  It  does  not 
belong  to  man  to  create,  to  make  anything  out  of  nothing, 
be  he  agriculturist  or  manufacturer;  and  if  by  production 
is  meant  creation,  all  our  labour  must  be  marked  down 
as  unproductive,  and  yours,  as  merchants,  more  unpro- 
ductive than  all  others,  excepting  perhaps  my  own. 

The  agriculturist,  then,  cannot  pretend  to  have  created 
corn,  but  he  has  created  value;  I  mean  to  say,  he  has, 
by  his  labour  and  that  of  his  servants,  labourers,  reapers, 
etc.,  transformed  into  corn  substances  which  had  no  re- 
semblance to  it  whatever.  The  miller  who  converts  the 
corn  into  flour,  the  baker  who  converts  the  flour  into 
bread,  do  the  same  thing. 

In  order  that  man  may  be  enabled  to  clothe  himself 
a  multitude  of  operations  are  necessary.  Prior  to  all 
intervention  of  human  labour  the  true  raw  materials  of 
cloth  are  the  air,  the  water,  the  heat,  the  gases,  the 
light,  the  salts,  which  enter  into  its  composition.  These 
are  the  raw  materials  upon  which,  strictly  speaking,  no 
human  labour  has  been  employed.  They  are  vierges  de 
tout  travail  humain;  and  since  they  have  no  value,  I 
should  never  dream  of  protecting  them.  But  the  first 
application  of  labour  converts  these  substances  into  grass 
and  provender,  a  second  into  wool,  a  third  into  yarn,  a 


RAW   MATERIALS  121 

fourth  into  a  woven  fabric,  a  fifth  into  clothing.  Who 
can  assert  that  the  whole  of  these  operations,  from  the 
first  furrow  laid  open  by  the  plough  to  the  last  stitch 
of  the  tailor's  needle,  do  not  resolve  themselves  into 
labour? 

And  it  is  because  these  operations  are  spread  over 
several  branches  of  industry,  in  order  to  accelerate  and 
facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  the  ultimate  object,  which 
is  to  furnish  clothing  to  those  who  have  need  of  it,  that 
you  desire,  by  an  arbitrary  distinction,  to  rank  the  im- 
portance of  such  works  in  the  order  in  which  they 
succeed  each  other,  so  that  the  first  of  the  series  shall 
not  merit  even  the  name  of  labour,  and  that  the  last, 
being  labour  par  excellence,  shall  be  worthy  of  the 
favours  of  protection  ? 

The  Petitioners  :  Yes ;  we  begin  to  see  that  corn, 
like  wool,  is  not  exactly  a  product  of  which  it  can  be 
said  that  no  human  labour  has  been  bestowed  upon  it; 
but  the  agriculturist  has  not,  at  least,  like  the  manu- 
facturer, done  everything  himself  or  by  means  of  his 
workmen ;  nature  has  assisted  him,  and  if  there  is  labour 
worked  up  in  corn  it  is  not  the  simple  product  of 
labour. 

M.  DE  Saint-Cricq  :  But  its  value  resolves  itself  ex- 
clusively into  labour.  I  am  happy  that  nature  concurs 
in  the  material  formation  of  grain.  I  could  even  wish 
that  it  were  entirely  her  work;  but  you  must  allow  that 
I  have  constrained  this  assistance  of  nature  by  my  labour, 
and  when  I  sell  you  my  corn  you  will  remark  this  :  That 
it  is  not  for  the  labour  of  nature  that  I  ask  you  to  pay, 
but  for  my  own. 

But,  as  you  state  the  case,  manufactured  commodities 
are  no  longer  the  exclusive  products  of  labour.  Is  the 
manufacturer  not  beholden  to  nature  in  his  processes? 
Does  he  not  avail  himself  of  the  assistance  of  the  steam- 


122  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

engine,  of  the  pressure  of  the  atmosphere,  just  as,  with 
the  assistance  of  the  plough,  I  avail  myself  of  its  humidity  ? 
Has  he  created  the  laws  of  gravitation,  of  the  transmission 
of  forces,  of  affinity? 

The  Petitioners  :  Well,  this  is  the  case  of  the  wool 
over  again ;  but  coal  is  assuredly  the  work,  the  exclusive 
work,  of  nature.  It  is  indeed  a  product  upon  which  no 
human  labour  has  ever  been  bestowed. 

M.  DE  Saint-Cricq  :  Yes;  nature  has  undoubtedly 
created  the  coal,  but  labour  has  imparted  value  to  it.  For 
the  millions  of  years  during  which  it  was  buried  lOO 
fathoms  under  ground,  unknown  to  everybody,  it  was 
destitute  of  value.  It  was  necessary  to  search  for  it — that 
is  labour;  it  was  necessary  to  send  it  to  market — that  is 
additional  labour.  Then  the  price  you  pay  for  it  in  the 
market  is  nothing  else  than  the  remuneration  of  the  labour 
of  mining  and  transport/ 

Thus  far  we  see  that  M.  de  Saint-Cricq  has  the  best  of 
the  argument;  that  the  value  of  raw  materials,  like  that 
of  manufactured  commodities,  represents  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction, that  is  to  say,  the  labour  worked  up  in  them ;  that 
it  is  not  possible  to  conceive  of  a  product  possessing  value, 
which  has  had  no  human  labour  bestowed  on  it;  that  the 
distinction  made  by  the  petitioners  is  futile  in  theory ;  that, 
as  the  basis  of  an  unequal  distribution  of  favours^  it  would 
be  iniquitous  in  practice,  since  the  result  would  be  that 

*  I  do  not  particularise  the  parts  of  the  remuneration  falling  to  the 
lessee,  the  capitalist,  etc.,  for  several  reasons  :  First,  because,  on  look- 
ing at  the  thing  more  closely,  you  will  see  that  the  remuneration  always 
resolves  itself  into  the  reimbursement  of  advances  or  the  payment  of 
previous  labour.  Secondly,  because,  under  the  term  labour,  I  include  not 
only  the  wages  of  the  workmen,  but  the  legitimate  recompense  of  every- 
thing which  co-operates  in  the  work  of  production.  Thirdly  (and  above 
all),  because  the  production  of  manufactured  products  is,  like  that  of 
raw  materials,  burdened  with  auxiliary  remunerations  other  than  the  mere 
expense  of  manual  labour;  and,  moreover,  this  objection,  frivolous  in 
itself,  would  apply  as  much  to  the  most  delicate  processes  of  manufacture, 
as  to  the  rudest  operations  of  agriculture^. 


RAW   MATERIALS  123 

one-third  of  our  countrymen,  who  happened  to  be  engaged 
in  manufactures,  would  obtain  the  advantages  of  mon- 
opoly, on  the  alleged  ground  that  they  produce  by  labour, 
whilst  the  other  two-thirds — namely,  the  agricultural 
population — would  be  abandoned  to  competition  under  the 
pretext  that  they  produce  without  labour. 

The  rejoinder  to  this,  I  am  quite  sure,  will  be,  that  a 
nation  derives  more  advantages  from  importing  what  are 
called  raw  materials,  whether  produced  by  labour  or  not, 
and  exporting  manufactured  commodities.  This  will  be 
repeated  and  insisted  on,  and  it  is  an  opinion  very  widely 
accredited. 

"The  more  abundant  raw  materials  are,"  says  the  Bor- 
deaux petition,  "the  more  are  manufactures  promoted  and 
multiplied." 

"Raw  materials,"  says  the  same  document  in  another 
place,  "open  up  an  unlimited  field  of  work  for  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  countries  into  which  they  are  imported." 

"Raw  materials,"  says  the  Havre  petition,  "consti- 
tuting as  they  do  the  elements  of  labour,  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  different  treatment,  and  be  gradually  admitted 
at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty." 

The  same  petition  expresses  a  wish  that  manufactured 
products  should  be  admitted,  not  gradually,  but  after  an 
indefinite  lapse  of  time,  not  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  but 
at  a  duty  of  20  per  cent. 

"Among  other  articles,  the  low  price  and  abundance  of 
which  are  a  necessity,"  says  the  Lyons  petition,  "manu- 
facturers include  all  raw  materials." 

All  this  is  founded  on  an  illusion. 

We  have  seen  that  all  value  represents  labour.  Now, 
it  is  quite  true  that  manufacturing  labour  increases  tenfold, 
sometimes  a  hundredfold,  the  value  of  the  raw  material; 
that  is  to  say,  it  yields  ten  times,  a  hundred  times,  more 
profit  to  the  nation.     Hence  men  are  led  to  reason  thus: 


124  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

The  production  of  a  hundredweight  of  iron  brings  in  a 
gain  of  only  15  shillings  to  workmen  of  all  classes.  The 
conversion  of  this  hundredweight  of  iron  into  the  main- 
springs of  watches  raises  their  earnings  to  ;^5oo;  and  will 
anyone  venture  to  say  that  a  nation  has  not  a  greater 
interest  to  secure  for  its  labour  a  gain  of  ;^5oo  than  a  gain 
of  fifteen  shillings?  We  do  not  exchange  a  hundred- 
weight of  unwrought  iron  for  a  hundredweight  of  watch- 
springs,  nor  a  hundredweight  of  unwashed  wool  for  a 
hundredweight  of  cashmere  shawls;  but  we  exchange  a 
certain  value  of  one  of  these  materials  for  an  equal  value 
of  another.  Now,  to  exchange  equal  value  for  equal  value 
is  to  exchange  equal  labour  for  equal  labour.  It  is  not 
true,  then,  that  a  nation  which  sells  five  pounds'  worth  of 
wrought  fabrics  or  watch-springs  gains  more  than  a  nation 
which  sells  five  pounds'  worth  of  wool  or  iron. 

In  a  country  where  no  law  can  be  voted,  where  no  tax 
can  be  imposed,  but  with  the  consent  of  those  whose 
dealings  the  law  is  to  regulate,  and  whose  pockets 
the  tax  is  to  affect,  the  public  cannot  be  robbed  without 
first  being  imposed  on  and  misled.  Our  ignorance  is  the 
raw  material  of  every  extortion  from  which  we  suffer,  and 
we  may  be  certain  beforehand  that  every  fallacy  is  the 
precursor  of  an  act  of  plunder.  My  good  friends !  when 
you  detect  a  fallacy  in  a  petition,  button  up  your 
breeches-pocket,  for  you  may  be  sure  that  this  is  the 
mark  aimed  at. 

Let  us  see,  then,  what  is  the  real  object  secretly  aimed 
at  by  the  shipowners  of  Bordeaux  and  Havre,  and  the 
manufacturers  of  Lyons,  and  which  is  concealed  under  the 
distinction  which  they  attempt  to  draw  between  agricul- 
tural and  manufactured  commodities. 

"  It  is  principally  this  first  class  (that  which  comprises 
raw  materials,  upon  which  no  human  labour  has  been 
bestowed)  which  affords,"  say  the  Bordeaux  petitioners, 


RAW   MATERIALS  125 

"the  principal  support  to  our  merchant  shipping.  .  .  . 
In  principle,  a  wise  economy  would  not  tax  this  class. 
.  .  .  The  second  (commodities  partly  wrought  up) 
may  be  taxed  to  a  certain  extent.  The  third  (commodities 
which  call  for  no  more  exertion  of  labour)  we  regard  as 
the  fittest  subjects  of  taxation/' 

The  Havre  petitioners  "consider  that  it  is  indispensable 
to  reduce  gradually  the  duty  on  raw  materials  to  the  lowest 
rate,  in  order  that  our  manufacturers  may  gradually  find 
employment  for  the  shipping  interest,  which  furnishes 
them  with  the  first  and  indispensable  materials  of  labour." 

The  manufacturers  could  not  remain  behindhand  in 
politeness  towards  the  shipowners.  So  the  Lyons  petition 
asks  for  the  free  introduction  of  raw  materials,  "in  ordei 
to  prove,"  as  they  express  it,  "that  the  interests  of  the 
manufacturing  are  not  always  opposed  to  those  of  the 
maritime  towns." 

No;  but  then  the  interests  of  both,  understood  as  the 
petitioners  understand  them,  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
interests  of  agriculture  and  of  consumers. 

Well,  gentlemen,  we  have  come  at  length  to  see  what 
you  are  aiming  at,  and  the  object  of  your  subtle  economi- 
cal distinctions.  You  desire  that  the  law  should  restrain 
the  transport  of  finished  goods  across  the  ocean,  in  order 
that  the  more  costly  conveyance  of  raw  and  rough 
materials,  bulky,  and  mixed  up  with  refuse,  should  afford 
greater  scope  for  your  merchant  shipping,  and  more  largely 
employ  your  marine  resources.  This  is  what  you  call  a 
wise  economy. 

On  the  same  principle,  why  do  you  not  ask  that  the 
pines  of  Russia  should  be  brought  to  you  with  their 
branches,  bark,  and  roots;  the  silver  of  Mexico  in  its 
mineral  state ;  the  hides  of  Buenos  Ayres  sticking  to  the 
bones  of  the  putrefying  carcases  from  which  they  have 
been  torn? 


126  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

I  expect  that  railway  shareholders,  the  moment  they 
are  in  a  majority  in  the  Chambers,  will  proceed  to  make 
a  law  forbidding  the  manufacture  of  the  brandy  which  is 
consumed  in  Paris.  And  why  not?  Would  not  a  law 
enforcing  the  conveyance  of  ten  casks  of  wine  for  every 
cask  of  brandy  afford  Parisian  industry  the  indispensable 
materials  of  its  labour,  and  give  employment  to  our  loco- 
motive resources? 

How  long  will  men  shut  their  eyes  to  this  simple 
truth  ? 

Manufactures,  shipping,  labour — all  have  for  end  the 
general,  the  public  good;  to  create  useless  industries,  to 
favour  superfluous  conveyances,  to  support  a  greater 
amount  of  labour  than  is  necessary,  not  for  the  good 
of  the  public,  but  at  the  expense  of  the  public — is  to  realise 
a  true  petitio  principii.  It  is  not  labour  which  is  desirable 
for  its  own  sake;  it  is  consumption.  All  labour  without 
a  commensurate  result  is  a  loss.  You  may  as  well  pay 
sailors  for  making  ducks  and  drakes  with  pebbles  on  the 
surface  of  the  water  as  pay  them  for  transporting  useless 
refuse.  Thus,  we  arrive  at  the  result  to  which  all  economic 
fallacies,  numerous  as  they  are,  conduct  us,  namely,  con- 
founding the  means  with  the  end,  and  developing  the  one 
at  the  expense  of  the  other. 

And    see    vol.    i.,    Collected     Works,   Reflections  on   the  Peti- 
tions of  Bordeaux,  Havre,  etc. — French  Editor. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

METAPHORS 

A  FALLACY  sometimes  expands,  and  runs  through  the 
whole  texture  of  a  long  and  elaborate  theory.  More  fre- 
quently, it  shrinks  and  contracts,  assumes  the  guise  of  a 
principle,  and  lurks  in  a  word  or  a  phrase. 

"May  God  protect  us  from  the  devil  and  from  meta- 
phors !  "  was  the  exclamation  of  Paul-Louis.*  And  it  is 
difficult  to  say  which  of  them  has  done  most  mischief 
in  this  world  of  ours.  The  devil,  you  will  say;  for  he  has 
put  the  spirit  of  plunder  into  all  our  hearts.  True,  but 
he  has  left  free  the  means  of  repressing  abuses  by  the 
resistance  of  those  who  suffer  from  them.  It  is  the 
fallacy  which  paralyses  this  resistance.  The  sword 
which  malice  puts  into  the  hands  of  assailants  would  be 
powerless,  did  sophistry  not  break  the  buckler  which 
should  shield  the  party  assailed.  It  was  with  reason, 
therefore,  that  Malebranche  inscribed  on  the  title-page  of 
his  work  this  sentence :  L'erreur  est  la  cause  de  la  misere 
des  hommes. 

Let  us  see  in  what  way  this  takes  place.  Ambitious 
men  are  often  actuated  by  sinister  and  wicked  intentions ; 
their  design,  for  example,  may  be  to  implant  in  the  public 
mind  the  germ  of  international  hatred.  This  fatal  germ 
may  develop  itself,  light  up  a  general  conflagration,  arrest 
civilisation,  cause  torrents  of  blood  to  be  shed,  and  bring 
upon  the  country  the  most  terrible  of  all  scourges,  invasion. 
At  any  rate,  and  apart  from  this,  such  sentiments  of  hatred 
lower  us  in  the  estimation   of  other  nations,   and  force 

*  Paul-Louis  Courier. 

127 


128  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

Frenchmen  who  retain  any  sense  of  justice  to  blush  for 
their  country.  These  are  undoubtedly  most  serious  evils; 
and  to  guard  the  public  against  the  underhand  practices  of 
those  who  would  expose  the  country  to  such  hazard,  it 
is  only  necessary  to  see  clearly  into  their  designs.  How  do 
they  manage  to  conceal  them?  By  the  use  of  metaphors. 
They  twist,  distort,  and  pervert  the  meaning  of  three  or 
four  words,  and  the  thing  is  done. 

The  word  invasion  itself  is  a  good  illustration  of  this. 

A  French  ironmaster  exclaims :  Preserve  us  from  the 
invasion  of  English  iron.  An  English  landowner  ex- 
claims in  return  :  Preserve  us  from  the  invasion  of  French 
corn.  And  then  they  proceed  to  interpose  barriers  between 
the  two  countries.  These  barriers  create  isolation,  isola- 
tion gives  rise  to  hatred,  hatred  to  war,  war  to  invasion. 
What  does  it  signify  ?  cry  the  two  sophists ;  is  it  not  better 
to  expose  ourselves  to  a  possible  invasion  than  accept  an 
invasion  which  is  certain  ?  And  the  people  believe  them, 
and  the  barriers  are  kept  up. 

And  yet  what  analogy  is  there  between  an  exchange 
and  an  invasion?  What  possible  similarity  can  be 
imagined  between  a  ship  of  war  which  comes  to  vomit  fire 
and  devastation  on  our  towns,  and  a  merchant  ship  which 
comes  to  offer  a  free  voluntary  exchange  of  commodities 
for  commodities  ? 

The  same  thing  holds  of  the  use  made  of  the  word 
inundation.  This  word  is  ordinarily  used  in  a  bad  sense, 
for  we  often  see  our  fields  injured,  and  our  harvests 
carried  away  by  floods.  If,  however,  they  leave  on  our 
soil  something  of  greater  value  than  what  they  carry  away, 
like  the  inundations  of  the  Nile,  we  should  be  thankful 
for  them,  as  the  Egyptians  are.  Before  we  declaim,  then, 
against  the  inundations  of  foreign  products — before  pro- 
ceeding to  restrain  them  by  irksome  and  costly  obstacles — 
we  should  inquire  to  what  class  they  belong,  and  whether 


METAPHORS  129 

they  ravage  or  fertilise.  What  should  we  think  of 
Mehemet  Ali,  if,  instead  of  raising  at  great  cost,  dams 
across  the  Nile,  to  extend  wider  its  inundations^  he  were  to 
spend  his  money  in  digging  a  deeper  channel  to  prevent 
Egypt  being  soiled  by  the  foreign  slime  which  descends 
upon  her  from  the  Mountains  of  the  Moon  ?  We  display 
exactly  the  same  degree  of  wisdom  and  sense,  when  we 
desire,  at  the  cost  of  millions,  to  defend  our  country — 
From  what  ?  From  the  benefits  which  nature  has  bestowed 
on  other  climates. 

Among  the  metaphors  which  conceal  a  pernicious 
theory,  there  is  no  one  more  in  use  than  that  presented  by 
the  words  tribute  and  tributary. 

These  words  have  now  become  so  common  that  they 
are  used  as  synonymous  with  purchase  and  purchaser,  and 
are  employed  indiscriminately. 

And  yet  a  tribute  is  as  different  from  a  purchase  as  a 
theft  is  from  an  exchange;  and  I  should  like  quite  as  well 
to  hear  it  said,  Cartouche  has  broken  into  my  strong-box 
and  purchased  a  thousand  pounds,  as  to  hear  one  of  our 
deputies  repeat,  We  have  paid  Germany  tribute  for  a 
thousand  horses  which  she  has  sold  us. 

For  what  distinguishes  the  act  of  Cartouche  from  a 
purchase  is,  that  he  has  not  put  into  my  strong-box,  and 
with  my  consent,  a  value  equivalent  to  what  he  has  taken 
out  of  it. 

And  what  distinguishes  our  remittance  of  ;^20,ooo 
which  we  have  made  to  Germany  from  a  tribute  paid  to 
her  is  this,  that  she  has  not  received  the  money  gratuit- 
ously, but  has  given  us  in  exchange  a  thousand  horses, 
which  we  have  judged  to  be  worth  the  ;^2o,ooo. 

Is  it  worth  while  exposing  seriously  such  an  abuse  of 
language  ?  Yes ;  for  these  terms  are  used  seriously  both 
in  newspapers  and  in  books. 

Do  not  let  it  be  supposed  that  these  are  instances  of  a 
J 


130  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

mere  lapsus  lingucB  on  the  part  of  certain  ignorant  writers  I 
For  one  writer  who  abstains  from  so  using  them,  I  will 
point  you  out  ten  who  admit  them,  and  amongst  the  rest, 
the  D'Argouts,  the  Dupins,  the  Villeles — peers,  deputies, 
ministers  of  state — men,  in  short,  whose  words  are  laws, 
and  whose  fallacies,  even  the  most  transparent,  serve  as 
a  basis  for  the  government  of  the  country. 

A  celebrated  modern  philosopher  has  added  to  the  cate- 
gories of  Aristotle  the  fallacy  which  consists  in  employing 
a  phrase  which  includes  a  petitio  principii.  He  gives 
many  examples  of  it;  and  he  should  have  added  the  word 
tributary  to  his  list.  The  business,  in  fact,  is  to  discover 
whether  purchases  made  from  foreigners  are  useful 
or  hurtful.  They  are  hurtful,  you  say.  And  why? 
Because  they  render  us  tributaries  to  the  foreigner. 
This  is  just  to  use  a  word  which  implies  the  very  thing 
to  be  proved. 

It  may  be  asked  how  this  abuse  of  words  first  came  to 
be  introduced  into  the  rhetoric  of  the  monopolists? 

Money  leaves  the  country  to  satisfy  the  rapacity  of  a 
victorious  enemy.  Money  also  leaves  the  country  to  pay 
for  commodities.  An  analogy  is  established  between  the 
two  cases  by  taking  into  account  only  the  points  in  which 
they  resemble  each  other,  and  keeping  out  of  view  the 
points  in  which  they  differ. 

Yet  this  circumstance — that  is  to  say,  the  non-reim- 
bursement in  the  first  case,  and  the  reimbursement 
voluntarily  agreed  upon  in  the  second — establishes  betwixt 
them  such  a  difference  that  it  is  really  impossible  to  class 
them  in  the  same  category.  To  hand  over  a  hundred 
pounds  by  force  to  a  man  who  has  caught  you  by  the 
throat,  or  to  hand  them  over  voluntarily  to  a  man  who 
furnishes  you  with  what  you  want,  are  things  as  different 
as  light  and  darkness.  You  might  as  well  assert  that  it 
is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  you  throw  your  bread 


METAPHORS  131 

into  the  river,  or  eat  it,  for  in  both  cases  the  bread  is 
destroyed.  The  vice  of  this  reasoning,  like  that  applied 
to  the  word  tribute,  consists  in  asserting  an  entire  simili- 
tude between  two  cases,  looking  only  at  their  points  of 
resemblance,  and  keeping  out  of  sight  the  points  in  which 
they  differ. 


SECOND     SERIES 
CHAPTER    1 

THE   TWO    HATCHETS 

PETITION  OF  JACQUES  BONHOMME,   CARPENTER,  TO  M.  CUNIN- 
GRIDAINE,   MINISTER  OF  COMMERCE 

Mr,  Manufacturer  Minister, 

I  am  a  carpenter  by  trade,  as  was  St.  Joseph  of  old, 
and  I  handle  the  hatchet  and  adze  for  your  benefit. 

Now,  while  engaged  in  hewing  and  chopping  from 
morning  to  night  upon  the  lands  of  our  Lord  the  King,^ 
the  idea  has  struck  me  that  my  labour  may  be  regarded 
as  national,  as  well  as  yours. 

And,  in  these  circumstances,  I  cannot  see  why  protection 
should  not  visit  my  woodyard  as  well  as  your  workshop. 

For,  sooth  to  say,  if  you  make  cloths  I  make  roofs; 
and  both,  in  their  own  way,  shelter  our  customers  from 
cold  and  from  rain. 

And  yet  I  run  after  customers,  and  customers  run 
after  you.  You  have  found  out  the  way  of  securing  them 
by  hindering  them  from  supplying  themselves  elsewhere, 
while  mine  apply  to  whomsoever  they  think  proper. 

What  is  astonishing  in  all  this?  Monsieur  Cunin, 
the  Minister  of  State,  has  not  forgotten  M.  Cunin,  the 
manufacturer — all  quite  natural.  But  alas!  my  humble 
trade  has  not  given  a  Minister  to  France,  although  prac- 
tised in  Scripture  times  by  far  more  august  personages. 

And  in  the  immortal  code  which  I  find  embodied  in 
Scripture  I  cannot  discover  the  slightest  expression  which 

*  Published  in  January,   1848. 

13a 


THE    TWO    HATCHETS  133 

could  be  quoted  by  carpenters  as  authorising  them  to 
enrich  themselves  at  the  expense  of  other  people. 

You  see,  then,  how  I  am  situated.  I  earn  fifteen 
pence  a  day,  when  it  is  not  Sunday  or  holiday.  I  offer 
you  my  services  at  the  same  time  as  a  Flemish  carpenter 
offers  you  his,  and,  because  he  abates  a  halfpenny,  you 
give  him  the  preference. 

But  I  desire  to  clothe  myself;  and  if  a  Belgian  weaver 
presents  his  cloth  alongside  of  yours,  you  drive  him  and 
his  cloth  out  of  the  country.  So  that,  being  forced  to 
frequent  your  shop,  although  the  dearest,  my  poor  fifteen 
pence  go  no  further  in  reality  than  fourteen. 

Nay,  they  are  not  worth  more  than  thirteen  !  For  in 
place  of  expelling  the  Belgian  weaver,  at  your  own  cost 
(which  was  the  least  you  could  do),  you,  for  your  own 
ends,  make  me  pay  for  the  people  you  set  at  his  heels. 

And  as  a  great  number  of  your  co-legislators,  with 
whom  you  are  on  a  marvellously  good  footing,  take  each 
a  halfpenny  or  a  penny,  under  pretext  of  protecting  iron, 
or  coal,  or  oil,  or  corn,  I  find,  when  everything  is  taken 
into  account,  that  of  my  fifteen  pence  I  have  only  been 
able  to  save  sevenpence  or  eightpence  from  pillage. 

You  will  no  doubt  tell  me  that  these  small  halfpence, 
which  pass  in  this  way  from  my  pocket  to  yours,  main- 
tain workpeople  who  reside  around  your  castle,  and 
enable  you  to  live  in  a  style  of  magnificence.  To  which 
I  will  only  reply  that,  if  the  pence  had  been  left  with 
me,  the  person  who  earned  them,  they  would  have 
maintained  workpeople  in  my  neighbourhood. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  Mr.  Minister  Manufacturer,  know- 
ing that  I  should  be  but  ill  received  by  you,  I  have  not 
come  to  require  you,  as  I  had  good  right  to  do,  to  with- 
draw the  restriction  which  you  impose  on  your  customers. 
I  prefer  following  the  ordinary  course,  and  I  approach  you 
to  solicit  a  little  bit  of  protection  for  myself. 


134  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

Here,  of  course,  you  will  interpose  a  difficulty.  *'  My 
good  friend,*'  you  will  say,  **  I  would  protect  you  and 
your  fellow-workmen  with  all  my  heart;  but  how  can  I 
confer  custom-house  favours  on  carpenter-work  ?  What 
use  would  it  be  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  houses 
by  sea  or  by  land?  *' 

That  would  be  a  good  joke,  to  be  sure;  but,  by  dint 
of  thinking,  I  have  discovered  another  mode  of  favouring 
the  children  of  St.  Joseph,  which  you  will  welcome  the 
more  willingly,  I  hope,  as  it  differs  in  nothing  from  that 
which  constitutes  the  privilege  which  you  vote  year  after 
year  in  your  own  favour. 

The  means  of  favouring  us  which  I  have  thus  mar- 
vellously discovered  is  to  prohibit  the  use  of  sharp  axes 
in  this  country. 

I  maintain  that  such  a  restriction  would  not  be  in 
the  least  more  illogical  or  more  arbitrary  than  the  one 
to  which  you  subject  us  in  the  case  of  your  cloth. 

Why  do  you  drive  away  the  Belgians  ?  Because  they 
sell  cheaper  than  you.  And  why  do  they  sell  cheaper 
than  you  ?  Because  they  have  a  certain  degree  of 
superiority  over  you  as  manufacturers. 

Between  you  and  a  Belgian,  therefore,  there  is  exactly 
the  same  difference  as  in  my  trade  there  would  be  between 
a  blunt  and  a  sharp  axe. 

And  you  force  me,  as  a  tradesman,  to  purchase  from 
you  the  product  of  the  blunt  hatchet  I 

Regard  the  country  at  large  as  a  workman  who  desires, 
by  his  labour,  to  procure  all  things  he  has  want  of, 
and,  among  others,  cloth. 

There  are  two  means  of  effecting  this. 

The  first  is  to  spin  and  weave  the  wool. 

The  second  is  to  produce  other  articles,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, French  clocks,  paper-hangings,  or  wines,  and 
exchange  them  with  the  Belgians  for  the  cloth  wanted. 


THE    TWO    HATCHETS  135 

Of  these  two  processes  the  one  which  gives  the  best 
result  may  be  represented  by  the  sharp  axe,  and  the 
other  by  the  blunt  one. 

You  do  not  deny  that  at  present,  in  France,  we 
obtain  a  piece  of  stuff  by  the  work  of  our  own  looms 
(that  is  the  blunt  axe)  with  more  labour  than  by  producing 
and  exchanging  wines  (that  is  the  sharp  axe).  So  far 
are  you  from  denying  this  that  it  is  precisely  because  of 
this  excess  of  labour  (in  which  you  make  wealth  to  consist) 
that  you  recommend,  nay,  that  you  compel  the  employ- 
ment of  the  worse  of  the  two  hatchets. 

Now,  only  be  consistent,  be  impartial,  and  if  you  mean 
to  be  just,  treat  the  poor  carpenters  as  you  treat  yourselves. 

Pass  a  law  to  this  effect;  — 

*'  No  one  shall  henceforth  be  permitted  to  employ  any 
beams  or  rafters  but  such  as  are  produced  and  fashioned 
by  blunt  hatchets," 

And  see  what  will  immediately  happen. 

Whereas  at  present  we  give  a  hundred  blows  of  the 
axe  we  shall  then  give  three  hundred.  The  work  which 
we  now  do  in  an  hour  will  then  require  three  hours. 
What  a  powerful  encouragement  will  thus  be  given  to 
labour  !  Masters,  journeymen,  apprentices,  our  sufferings 
are  now  at  an  end !  We  shall  be  in  demand ;  and, 
therefore,  well  paid.  Whoever  shall  henceforth  desire  to 
have  a  roof  to  cover  him  must  comply  with  our  exactions, 
just  as  at  present  whoever  desires  clothes  to  his  back 
must  comply  with  yours. 

And  should  the  theoretical  advocates  of  Free  Trade 
ever  dare  to  call  in  question  the  utility  of  the  measure 
we  know  well  where  to  seek  for  reasons  to  confute  them. 
Your,  inquiry  of  1834  is  still  to  be  had.  With  that 
weapon  we  shall  conquer;  for  you  have  there  admirably 
pleaded  the  cause  of  restriction  and  of  blunt  axes,  which 
are  in  reality  the  same  thing. 


CHAPTER    II 

LOWER    COUNCIL    OF    LABOUR 

•*  What  I  you  have  the  face  to  demand  for  all  citizens 
a  right  to  sell,  buy,  barter,  and  exchange;  to  render 
and  receive  service  for  service,  and  to  judge  for  them- 
selves, on  the  single  condition  that  they  do  all  honestly, 
and  comply  with  the  demands  of  the  public  treasury  ? 
Then  you  simply  desire  to  deprive  our  workmen  of  em- 
ployment, of  wages,  and  of  bread?" 

That  is  what  is  said  to  us.  I  know  very  well  what 
to  think  of  it;  but  what  I  wish  to  know  is,  what  the 
workmen  themselves  think  of  it. 

I  have  at  hand  an  excellent  instrument  of  inquiry. 
Not  those  Upper  Councils  of  Industry,  where  extensive 
proprietors  who  call  themselves  labourers,  rich  shipowners 
who  call  themselves  sailors,  and  wealthy  shareholders  who 
pass  themselves  off  for  workmen,  turn  their  philanthropy 
to  account  in  a  way  which  we  all  know. 

No;  it  is  with  workmen  who  are  workmen  in  reality 
that  we  have  to  do — joiners,  carpenters,  masons,  tailors, 
shoemakers,  dyers,  blacksmiths,  innkeepers,  grocers,  etc. 
etc. — and  who  in  my  village  have  founded  a  friendly 
society. 

I  have  transformed  this  friendly  society,  at  my  own 
hand,  into  a  Lower  Council  of  Labour,  and  instituted  an 
inquiry  which  will  be  found  of  great  importance,  although 
it  is  not  crammed  with  figures,  or  inflated  to  the  bulk 
of  a  quarto  volume  printed  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 

My    object    was    to    interrogate    these    plain,    simple 

people  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  are,   or  believe 

136 


LOWER    COUNCIL    OF    LABOUR 


137 


themselves  to  be,  affected  by  the  policy  of  protection. 
The  president  pointed  out  that  this  would  be  infringing 
to  some  extent  on  the  fundamental  conditions  of  the 
Association.  For  in  France,  this  land  of  liberty,  people 
who  associate  give  up  their  right  to  talk  politics — in  other 
words,  their  right  to  discuss  their  common  interests. 
However,  after  some  hesitation,  he  agreed  to  include  the 
question  in  the  order  of  the  day. 

They  divided  the  assembly  into  as  many  committees 
as  there  were  groups  of  distinct  trades,  and  delivered  to 
each  committee  a  schedule  to  be  filled  up  after  fifteen 
days'  deliberation. 

On  the  day  fixed,  the  worthy  president  (we  adopt  the 
official  style)  took  the  chair,  and  there  were  laid  upon 
the  table  (still  the  official  style)  fifteen  reports,  which  he 
read  in  succession. 

The  first  which  was  taken  into  consideration  was  that 
of  the  tailors.     Here  is  an  exact  and  literal  copy  of  it :  — 


EFFECTS  OF  PROTECTION. — REPORT 
Inconveniences. 
I  St,  In  consequence  of  the  -policy  of  -pro- 
tection, we  pay  dearer  for  bread,  meat, 
sugar,  firewood,  thread,  needles,  etc.,  which 
is  equivalent  in  our  case  to  a  considerable 
reduction  of   wages. 

2nd,  In  consequence  of  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection, our  customers  also  pay  dearer  for 
everything,  and  this  leaves  them  less  to 
spend  upon  clothing;  whence  it  follows 
that  we  have  less  employment,  and,  con- 
sequently, smaller  returns. 

3rd,  In  co7tsequence  of  the  policy  of  pro- 
tection, the  stuffs  which  we  make  up  are 
dear,  and  people  on  that  account  wear  their 
clothes  longer,  or  dispense  with  part  of 
them.  This,  again,  is  equivalent  to  a 
diminution  of  employment,  and  forces  us  to 
offer  our  services  at  a  lower  rate  of  re- 
muneration. 


OF  THE   TAILORS 

Advantages. 

None. 


Note. — After  all  our 
inquiries,  delibera- 
tions, and  discus- 
sions, we  have  been 
quite  unable  to  dis- 
cover that  in  any  re- 
spect whatever  the 
policy  of  protection 
has  been  of  advan- 
tage to  our  trade. 


138 


FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 


Here  is  another  report :  — 

EFFECTS    OF    PROTECTION.— REPORT    OF    THE    BLACKSMITHS 

Inconveniences.  Advantages. 

I  St,  The  policy  of  protection  imposes  a 
tax  upon  us  every  time  we  eat,  drink,  or 
warm  or  clothe  ourselves,  and  this  tax  does 
not  go  to  the  treasury. 

2nd,  It  imposes  a  like  tax  upon  all  our 
fellow-citizens  who  are  not  of  our  trade,  and 
they,  being  so  much  the  poorer,  have  re- 
course to  cheap  substitutes  for  our  work, 
which  deprives  us  of  the  employment  we 
should  otherwise  have  had. 

3rd,  It  keeps  up  iron  at  so  high  a  price,  None. 

that  it  is  not  employed  in  the  country  for 
ploughs,  grates,  gates,  balconies,  etc. ;  and 
our  trade,  which  might  furnish  employment 
to  so  many  other  people  who  are  in  want 
of  it,  no  longer  furnishes  employment  to 
ourselves. 

4th,  The  revenue  which  the  treasury  fails 
to  obtain  from  commodities  which  are  not 
imforted,  is  levied  upon  the  salt  we  use, 
postages,  etc. 

All  the  other  reports  (with  which  it  is  unnecessary  to 
trouble  the  reader)  are  to  the  same  tune.  Gardeners, 
carpenters,  shoemakers,  clogmakers,  boatmen,  millers,  all 
give  vent  to  the  same  complaints. 

I  regret  that  there  are  no  agricultural  labourers  in 
our  association.  Their  report  would  assuredly  have  been 
very  instructive. 

But  alas  I  in  our  country  of  the  Landes,  the  poor 
labourers,  protected  though  they  be,  have  not  the  means 
of  joining  an  association,  and,  having  insured  their  cattle, 
they  find  they  cannot  themselves  become  members  of  a 
friendly  society.  The  boon  of  protection  does  not  hinder 
them  from  being  the  parias  of  our  social  order.  What 
shall  I  say  of  the  vine-dressers? 

What  I  remark,  especially,  is  the  good  sense  displayed 


LOWER    COUNCIL   OF    LABOUR  139 

by  our  villagers  in  perceiving  not  only  the  direct  injury 
which  the  policy  of  protection  does  them,  but  the  indirect 
injury,  which,  although  in  the  first  instance  affecting  their 
customers,  rebounds  upon  themselves. 

This  is  what  the  economists  of  the  Moniteur  Industriel 
do  not  appear  to  understand. 

And  perhaps  those  men  whose  eyes  a  dash  of  pro- 
tection has  fascinated,  especially  our  agriculturists,  would 
be  willing  to  give  it  up  if  they  were  enabled  to  see  this 
side  of  the  question. 

In  that  case  they  might  perhaps  say  to  themselves, 
**  Better  far  to  be  self-supported  in  the  midst  of  a  set  of 
customers  in  easy  circumstances  than  to  be  protected  in 
the  midst  of  an  impoverished  clientele. 

For  to  desire  to  enrich  by  turns  each  separate  branch 
of  industry,  by  creating  a  void  round  each  in  succession, 
is  as  vain  an  attempt  as  it  would  be  for  a  man  to  try  to 
leap  over  his  own  shadow. 


CHAPTER    III 

DEARNESS  —  CHEAPNESS 

I  THINK  it  necessary  to  submit  to  the  reader  some 
theoretical  remarks  on  the  illusions  to  which  the  words 
dearness  and  cheapness  give  rise.  At  first  sight,  these 
remarks  may,  I  feel,  be  regarded  as  subtle,  but  the 
question  is  not  whether  they  are  subtle  or  the  reverse, 
but  whether  they  are  true.  Now,  I  not  only  believe 
them  to  be  perfectly  true,  but  to  be  well  fitted  to  suggest 
matter  of  reflection  to  men  (of  whom  there  are  not  a 
few)  who  have  sincere  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  a  pro- 
tectionist policy. 

The  advocates  of  Liberty  and  the  defenders  of  Re- 
striction are  both  obliged  to  employ  the  expressions, 
dearness,  cheapness.  The  former  declare  themselves  in 
favour  of  cheapness  with  a  view  to  the  interest  of  the 
consumer;  the  latter  pronounce  in  favour  of  dearness, 
having  regard  especially  to  the  interest  of  the  producer. 
Others  content  themselves  with  saying  :  The  producer  and 
consumer  are  one  and  the  same  person;  which  leaves 
undecided  the  question  whether  the  law  should  promote 
cheapness  or  dearness. 

In  the  midst  of  this  conflict  it  would  seem  that  the 

law  has  only  one  course  to  follow,  and  that  is  to  allow 

prices    to   settle   and   adjust   themselves    naturally.      But 

then  we  are  attacked  by  the  bitter  enemies  of  laissez  faire. 

At  all   hazards  they   want  the  law   to  interfere,   without 

knowing   or  caring   in   what  direction.     And  yet  it  lies 

with  those  who  desire  to  create  by  legal  intervention  an 

artificial   dearness  or  an   unnatural  cheapness  to  explain 

140 


DEARNESS— CHEAPNESS  141 

the  grounds  of  their  preference.  The  burden  of  proof  rests 
upon  them  exclusively.  Liberty  is  always  esteemed  good 
till  the  contrary  is  proved;  and  to  allow  prices  to  settle 
and  adjust  themselves  naturally  is  liberty. 

But  the  parties  to  this  dispute  have  changed  positions. 
The  advocates  of  dearness  have  secured  the  triumph  of 
their  system/  and  it  lies  with  the  defenders  of  natural 
prices  to  prove  the  goodness  of  their  cause.  On  both 
sides  the  argument  turns  on  two  words;  and  it  is  there- 
fore very  essential  to  ascertain  what  these  two  words 
really  mean. 

But  we  must  first  of  all  notice  a  series  of  facts  which 
are  fitted  to  disconcert  the  champions  of  both  camps. 

To  engender  dearness  the  restrictionists  have  obtained 
protective  duties,  and  a  cheapness,  which  is  to  them  in- 
explicable, has  come  to  deceive  their  hopes. 

To  create  cheapness,  the  free  traders  have  occasionally 
succeeded  in  securing  liberty,  and,  to  their  astonishment, 
an  elevation  of  prices  has  been  the  consequence. 

For  example,  in  France,  in  order  to  favour  agriculture, 
a  duty  of  22  per  cent,  has  been  imposed  on  foreign  wool, 
and  it  has  turned  out  that  French  wool  has  been  sold  at 
a  lower  price  after  the  measure  than  before  it. 

In  England,  to  satisfy  the  consumer,  they  lowered,  and 
ultimately  removed,  the  duty  on  foreign  wool;  and  it 
has  come  to  pass  that  in  that  country  the  price  of  wool 
is  higher  than  ever. 

And  these  are  not  isolated  facts ;  for  the  price  of  wool 
is  governed  by  precisely  the  same  laws  which  govern  the 
price  of  everything  else.  The  same  result  is  produced 
in  all  analogous  cases.  Contrary  to  expectation,  protection 
has,  to  some  extent,  brought  about  a  fall,  and  competition, 
to  some  extent,  a  rise  of  prices. 

When  the  confusion  of  ideas  thence  arising  had 
P  Written  in  1847.] 


142  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

reached  its  height,  the  protectionists  began  saying  to 
their  adversaries:  "It  is  our  system  which  brings  about 
the  cheapness  of  which  you  boast  so  much."  To  which 
the  reply  was:  *' It  is  liberty  which  has  induced  the 
dearness  which  you  find  so  useful."  ' 

Evidently  there  is  in  all  this  a  misconception,  an 
illusion,  which  it  is  necessary  to  clear  up;  and  this  is 
what  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  do. 

Put  the  case  of  two  isolated  nations,  each  composed 
of  a  million  of  inhabitants.  Grant  that,  other  things 
being  equal,  the  one  possesses  double  the  quantity  of 
everything — corn,  meat,  iron,  furniture,  fuel,  books,  cloth- 
ing, etc. — which  the  other  possesses. 

It  will  be  granted  that  the  one  is  twice  as  rich  as 
the  other. 

And  yet  there  is  no  reason  to  affirm  that  a  difference 
in  actual  money  prices'^  exists  in  the  two  countries. 
Nominal  prices  may  perhaps  be  higher  in  the  richer 
country.  It  may  be  that  in  the  United  States  everything 
is  nominally  dearer  than  in  Poland,  and  that  the  popula- 
tion of  the  former  country  should,  nevertheless,  be  better 
provided  with  all  that  they  need;  whence  we  infer  that 
it  is  not  the  nominal  price  of  products  but  their  com- 
parative abundance,  which  constitutes  wealth.  When, 
then,  we  desire  to  pronounce  an  opinion  on  the  com- 
parative merits  of  restriction  and  free  trade,  we  should 
not  inquire  which  of  the  two  systems  engenders  dearness 
or  cheapness,  but  which  of  the  two  brings  abundance  or 
scarcity. 

^  Recently,  M.  Duchatel,  who  had  formerly  advocated  free  trade,  with 
a  view  to  low  prices,  said  to  the  Chamber  :  "  It  would  not  be  difficult  for 
me  to  prove  that  protection  leads  to  cheapness." 

*  The  expression,  prtx  absolus  (absolute  prices),  which  the  author 
employs  here  and  in  ch.  xi.  of  the  first  series  {anie)^  is  not,  I  think, 
used  by  English  economists,  and  from  the  context  in  both  instances  I 
take  it  to  mean  actual  money  -prices ;  or  what  Adam  Smith  terms  nominal 
'prices. — Tkanslatoe. 


DEARNESS— CHEAPNESS  143 

For  observe  this,  that  products  being  exchanged  for 
each  other,  a  relative  scarcity  of  all,  and  a  relative 
abundance  of  all,  leave  the  nominal  prices  of  commodities 
in  general  at  the  same  point;  but  this  cannot  be  affirmed 
of  the  relative  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  two 
countries. 

Let  us  dip  a  little  deeper  still  into  this  subject. 

When  we  see  an  increase  and  a  reduction  of  duties 
produce  effects  so  different  from  what  we  had  expected, 
depreciation  often  following  taxation,  and  enhancement 
following  free  trade,  it  becomes  the  imperative  duty  of 
political  economy  to  seek  an  explanation  of  phenomena 
so  much  opposed  to  received  ideas ;  for  it  is  needless  to 
say  that  a  science,  if  it  is  worthy  of  the  name,  is  nothing 
else  than  a  faithful  statement  and  a  sound  explanation  of 
facts. 

Now  the  phenomenon  we  are  here  examining  is  ex- 
plained very  satisfactorily  by  a  circumstance  of  which  we 
must  never  lose  sight. 

Dearness  is  due  to  two  causes,  and  not  to  one  only^ 

The  same  thing  holds  good  of  cheapness.^ 

It  is  one  of  the  least  disputed  points  in  political  economy 
that  price  is  determined  by  the  relative  state  of  supply  and 
demand. 

There  are  then  two  terms  which  affect  price — supply 
and  demand.  These  terms  are  essentially  variable.  They 
may  be  combined  in  the  same  direction,  in  contrary  direc- 
tions, and  in  infinitely  varied  proportions.  Hence  the 
combinations  of  which  price  is  the  result  are  inexhaustible. 

High  price  may  be  the  result  either  of  diminished 
supply  or  of  increased  demand. 

Low  price  may  be  the  result  of  increased  supply  or  of 
diminished  demand. 

^  See  also  Bastiat's  speech  of  Sept.  29th,  1846,  Collected  Works,  vol.  ii., 
p.  238.— Fkench  Editor. 


144  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

Hence  there  are  two  kinds  of  clearness,  and  two  kinds 
of  cheapness. 

There  is  a  dearness  of  an  injurious  kind,  that  which 
proceeds  from  a  diminution  of  supply,  for  that  implies 
scarcity,  privation  (such  as  has  been  felt  this  year^  from 
the  scarcity  of  corn) ;  and  there  is  a  dearness  of  a  beneficial 
kind,  that  which  results  from  an  increase  of  demand,  for 
the  latter  presupposes  the  development  of  general  wealth. 

In  the  same  way,  there  is  a  cheapness  which  is  de- 
sirable, that  which  has  its  source  in  abundance;  and  an 
injurious  cheapness,  that  has  for  its  cause  the  failure  of 
demand,  and  the  impoverishment  of  consumers. 

Now,  be  pleased  to  remark  this  :  that  restriction  tends 
to  induce,  at  the  same  time,  both  the  injurious  cause 
of  dearness,  and  the  injurious  cause  of  cheapness — injuri- 
ous dearness,  by  diminishing  the  supply,  for  this  is  the 
avowed  object  of  restriction ;  and  injurious  cheapness,  by 
diminishing  also  the  demand ;  seeing  that  it  gives  a  false 
direction  to  labour  and  capital,  and  fetters  consumers  with 
taxes  and  trammels. 

So  that,  as  regards  price,  these  two  tendencies  neutralise 
each  other;  and  this  is  the  reason  why  the  restrictive 
system,  restraining,  as  it  does,  demand  and  supply  at  one 
and  the  same  time,  does  not  in  the  long  run  realise  even 
that  dearness  which  is  its  object. 

But,  as  regards  the  condition  of  the  population,  these 
causes  do  not  at  all  neutralise  each  other ;  on  the  contrary, 
they  concur  in  making  it  worse. 

The  effect  of  freedom  of  trade  is  exactly  the  opposite. 
In  its  general  result,  it  may  be  that  it  does  not  realise 
the  cheapness  it  promises;  for  it  has  two  tendencies,  one 
towards  desirable  cheapness  through  the  extension  of 
supply,  or  abundance ;  the  other  towards  appreciable  dear- 
ness by  the  development  of  demand,  or  general  wealth. 
1  This  was  written  in  1847.— Translator. 


DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS  145 

These  two  tendencies  neutralise  each  other  in  what  con- 
cerns nominal  price,  but  they  concur  in  what  regards 
the  material  prosperity  of  the  population. 

In  short,  under  the  restrictive  system,  in  as  far  as  it  is 
operative,  men  recede  towards  a  state  of  things  in  which 
both  demand  and  supply  are  enfeebled.  Under  a  system 
of  freedom,  they  progress  towards  a  state  of  things  in  which 
both  are  developed  simultaneously,  and  without  necessarily 
affecting  nominal  prices.  Such  prices  form  no  good 
criterion  of  wealth.  They  may  remain  the  same  whilst 
society  is  falling  into  a  state  of  the  most  abject  poverty 
or  whilst  it  is  advancing  towards  a  state  of  the  greatest 
prosperity. 

We  shall  now,  in  a  few  words,  show  the  practical 
application  of  this  doctrine. 

A  cultivator  of  the  south  of  France  believes  himself  to 
be  very  rich,  because  he  is  protected  by  duties  from  ex- 
ternal competition.  He  may  be  as  poor  as  Job;  but  he 
nevertheless  imagines  that  sooner  or  later  he  will  get  rich 
by  protection.  In  these  circumstances,  if  we  ask  him  the 
question  w^hich  was  put  by  the  Odier  Committee  in  these 
words  : 

"Do  you  desire — yes  or  no — to  be  subject  to  foreign 
competition?"  His  first  impulse  is  to  answer  "No," 
and  the  Odier  Committee  proudly  welcome  his  re- 
sponse. 

However,  we  must  go  a  little  deeper  into  the  matter. 
Unquestionably,  foreign  competition — nay,  competition  in 
general — is  always  troublesome;  and  if  one  branch  of 
trade  alone  could  get  quit  of  it,  that  branch  of  trade  would 
for  some  time  profit  largely. 

But  protection  is  not  an  isolated  favour;  it  is  a  system. 
If,  to  the  profit  of  the  agriculturist,  protection  tends  to 
create  a  scarcity  of  corn  and  of  meat,  it  tends  likewise  to 
create,  to  the  profit  of  other  industries,  a  scarcity  of  iron, 


146  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

of  cloth,  of  fuel,  tools,  etc. — a  scarcity,  in  short,  of 
everything. 

Now,  if  a  scarcity  of  corn  tends  to  enhance  its  price 
through  a  diminution  of  supply,  the  scarcity  of  all  other 
commodities  for  which  corn  is  exchanged  tends  to  reduce 
the  price  of  corn  by  a  diminution  of  demand,  so  that  it 
is  not  at  all  certain  that  ultimately  corn  will  be  a  penny 
dearer  than  it  would  have  been  under  a  system  of  free 
trade.  There  is  nothing  certain  in  the  whole  process  but 
this — that  as  there  is  upon  the  whole  less  of  every  com- 
modity in  the  country,  each  man  will  be  less  plentifully 
provided  with  everything  he  has  occasion  to  buy. 

The  agriculturist  should  ask  himself  whether  it  would 
not  be  more  for  his  interest  that  a  certain  quantity  of  corn 
and  cattle  should  be  imported  from  abroad,  and  that  he 
should  at  the  same  time  find  himself  surrounded  by  a 
population  in  easy  circumstances,  able  and  willing  to  con- 
sume and  pay  for  all  sorts  of  agricultural  produce. 

Suppose  a  department  in  which  the  people  are  clothed 
in  rags,  fed  upon  chestnuts,  and  lodged  in  hovels.  How 
can  agriculture  flourish  in  such  a  locality?  What  can 
the  soil  be  made  to  produce  with  a  well-founded  expecta- 
tion of  fair  remuneration  ?  Meat  ?  The  people  do  not 
eat  it.  Milk?  They  must  content  themselves  with  water. 
Butter  ?  It  is  regarded  as  a  luxury.  Wool  ?  The  use 
of  it  is  dispensed  with  as  much  as  possible.  Does  anyone 
imagine  that  all  the  ordinary  objects  of  consumption  can 
thus  be  put  beyond  the  reach  of  the  masses,  without  tend- 
ing to  lower  prices  as  much  as  protection  is  tending  to 
raise  them  ? 

What  has  been  said  of  the  agriculturist  holds  equally 
true  of  the  manufacturer.  Our  manufacturers  of  cloth 
assure  us  that  external  competition  will  lower  prices  by 
increasing  the  supply.  Granted;  but  will  not  these  prices 
be  again  raised  by  an  increased  demand?     Is  the  con- 


DEARNESS— CHEAPNESS  147 

sumption  of  cloth  a  fixed  and  invariable  quantity?  Has 
every  man  as  much  of  it  as  he  would  wish  to  have  ?  And 
if  general  wealth  is  advanced  and  developed  by  the  aboli- 
tion of  all  these  taxes  and  restrictions,  will  the  first  use 
to  which  this  emancipation  is  turned  by  the  population 
not  be  to  dress  better? 

The  question — the  constantly-recurring  question — then, 
is  not  to  find  out  whether  protection  is  favourable  to  any 
one  special  branch  of  industry,  but  whether,  when  every- 
thing is  weighed,  balanced,  and  taken  into  account,  re- 
striction is,  in  its  own  nature,  more  productive  than  liberty. 

Now,  no  one  will  venture  to  maintain  this.  On  the 
contrary,  we  are  perpetually  met  with  the  admission, 
"You  are  right  in  principle." 

If  it  be  so,  if  restriction  confers  no  benefit  on  individual 
branches  of  industry  without  doing  a  greater  amount  of 
injury  to  general  wealth,  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that 
actual  money  prices,  considered  by  themselves,  only  ex- 
press a  relation  between  each  special  branch  of  industry 
and  industry  in  general,  between  supply  and  demand ;  and 
that,  on  this  account,  a  remunerative  price,  which  is  the 
f>rofessed  object  of  protection,  is  rather  injured  than 
favoured  by  the  system. 

Supplement* 
The  article  which  we  have  published  under  the  title  of 
Dearness,  Cheapness,  has  brought  us  several  letters.     We 
give  them,  along  with  our  replies:  — 

Mr.  Editor, — You  upset  all  our  ideas.  I  endeavoured  to  aid 
the  cause  of  free  trade,  and  found  it  necessary  to  urge  the  con- 
sideration of  cheapness.  I  went  about  everywhere,  saying,  "  When 
freedom  of  trade  is  accorded,  bread,  meat,  cloth,  linen,  iron,  fuel, 
will  go  on  falling  in  price."  This  displeased  those  who  sell,  but 
gave  great  pleasure   to   those  who  buy   these   commodities.     And 

^  What  follows  appeared  in  the  Libre  Echange  of  Aug.  ist,  1847. — 
French  Editos. 


148  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

now  you  throw  out  doubts  as  to  whether  free  trade  will  bring  us 
cheapness  or  not.  What,  then,  is  to  be  gained  by  it  ?  What  gain 
will  it  be  to  the  people  if  foreign  competition,  which  may  damage 
their  sales,  does  not  benefit  them  in  their  purchases  ? 

Mr.  Free-trader, — Allow  us  to  tell  you  that  you  must 
have  read  only  half  the  article  which  has  called  forth  your 
letter.  We  said  that  free  trade  acts  exactly  in  the  same 
way  as  roads,  canals,  railways,  and  everything  else  which 
facilitates  communication  by  removing  obstacles.  Its  first 
tendency  is  to  increase  the  supply  of  the  commodity  freed 
from  duty,  and  consequently  to  lower  its  price.  But  by 
augmenting  at  the  same  time  the  supply  of  all  other  com- 
modities for  which  this  article  is  exchanged,  it  increases 
the  demand,  and  the  price  by  this  means  rises  again.  You 
ask  what  gain  this  would  be  to  the  people?  Suppose  a 
balance  with  several  scales,  in  each  of  which  is  deposited 
a  certain  quantity  pf  the  articles  you  have  enumerated. 
If  you  add  to  the  corn  in  one  scale  it  will  tend  to  fall ; 
but  if  you  add  a  little  cloth,  a  little  iron,  a  little  fuel,  to 
what  the  other  scales  contained,  you  will  redress  the 
equilibrium.  If  you  look  only  at  the  beam,  you  will  find 
nothing  changed.  But  if  you  look  at  the  people  for  whose 
use  these  articles  are  produced,  you  will  find  them  better 
fed,  clothed,  and  warmed. 

Mr.  Editor, — I  am  a  manufacturer  of  cloth,  and  a  protec- 
tionist. I  confess  that  your  article  on  dearness  and  cheapness  has 
made  me  reflect.  It  contains  something  specious  which  would 
require  to  be  well  established  before  we  declare  ourselves  converted. 

Mr.  Protectionist. — We  say  that  your  restrictive 
measures  have  an  iniquitous  object  in  view,  namely,  arti- 
ficial  dearness.  But  we  do  not  affirm  that  they  always 
realise  the  hopes  of  those  who  promote  them.  It  is  certain 
that  they  inflict  on  the  consumer  all  the  injurious  conse- 
quences of  scarcity.  It  is  not  certain  that  they  always 
confer  a  corresponding  advantage  on  the  producer.    Why  ? 


DEARNESS— CHEAPNESS  149 

Because  if  they  diminish  the  supply,  they  diminish  also 
the  demand. 

This  proves  that  there  is  in  the  economic  arrangement 
of  this  world  a  moral  force,  a  vis  medicatrix,  which  causes 
unjust  ambition  in  the  long  run  to  fall  a  prey  to  self- 
deception. 

Would  you  have  the  goodness,  sir,  to  remark  that  one 
of  the  elements  of  the  prosperity  of  each  individual  branch 
of  industry  is  the  general  wealth  of  the  community.  The 
value  of  a  house  is  not  always  in  proportion  to  what  it 
has  cost,  but  likewise  in  proportion  to  the  number  and 
fortune  of  the  tenants.  Are  two  houses  exactly  similar 
necessarily  of  the  same  value  ?  By  no  means,  if  the  one 
is  situated  in  Paris  and  the  other  in  Lower  Brittany. 
Never  speak  of  price  without  taking  into  account  collateral 
circumstances,  and  let  it  be  remembered  that  no  attempt 
is  so  bootless  as  to  endeavour  to  found  the  prosperity  of 
parts  on  the  ruin  of  the  whole.  And  yet  this  is  what  the 
policy  of  restriction  pretends  to  do. 

Consider  what  would  have  happened  at  Paris,  for  ex- 
ample, if  this  strife  of  interests  had  been  attended  with 
success. 

Suppose  that  the  first  shoemaker  who  established  him- 
self in  that  city  had  succeeded  in  ejecting  all  others ;  that 
the  first  tailor,  the  first  mason,  the  first  printer,  the  first 
watchmaker,  the  first  physician,  the  first  baker,  had  been 
equally  successful.  Paris  would  at  this  moment  have  been 
still  a  village  of  1,200  or  1,500  inhabitants.  It  has  turned 
out  very  differently.  The  market  of  Paris  has  been  open 
to  all  (excepting  those  whom  you  still  keep  out),  and  it 
is  this  freedom  which  has  enlarged  and  aggrandised  it. 
The  struggles  of  competition  have  been  bitter  and  long 
continued,  and  this  is  what  has  made  Paris  a  city  of  a 
million  of  inhabitants.  The  general  wealth  has  increased, 
no  doubt ;  but  has  the  individual  wealth  of  the  shoemakers 


I50  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

* 
and  tailors  been  diminished?  This  is  the  question  you 
have  to  ask.  You  may  say  that  according  as  the  number 
of  competitors  increased,  the  price  of  their  products  would 
go  on  falling.  Has  it  done  so?  No;  for  if  the  supply 
has  been  augmented,  the  demand  has  been  enlarged. 

The  same  thing  will  hold  good  of  your  commodity, 
cloth ;  let  it  enter  freely.  You  will  have  more  competitors 
in  the  trade,  it  is  true ;  but  you  will  have  more  customers, 
and,  above  all,  richer  customers.  Is  it  possible  you  can 
never  have  thought  of  this,  when  you  see  nine-tenths  of 
your  fellow-citizens  underclothed  in  winter,  for  want  of 
the  commodity  which  you  manufacture  ? 

If  you  wish  to  prosper,  allow  your  customers  to  thrive. 
This  is  a  lesson  which  you  have  been  very  long  in  learning. 
When  it  is  thoroughly  learnt,  each  man  will  seek  his  own 
interest  in  the  general  good;  and  then  jealousies  between 
man  and  man,  town  and  town,  province  and  province, 
nation  and  nation,  will  no  longer  trouble  the  world. 


CHAPTER    IV 

TO    ARTISANS    AND    WORKMEN 

Many  journals  have  attacked  me  in  your  presence  and 
hearing/  Perhaps  you  will  not  object  to  read  my 
defence. 

I  am  not  suspicious.  When  a  man  writes  or  speaks, 
I  take  it  for  granted  that  he  believes  what  he  says. 

And  yet,  after  reading  and  re-reading  the  journals  to 
which  I  now  reply,  I  seem  unable  to  discover  any  other 
than  melancholy  tendencies. 

Our  present  business  is  to  inquire  which  is  more 
favourable  to  your  interests — liberty  or  restriction. 

I  believe  that  it  is  liberty;  they  believe  that  it  is 
restriction.     It  is  for  each  party  to  prove  his  own  thesis. 

Was  it  necessary  to  insinuate  that  we  free  traders 
•are  the  agents  of  England,  of  the  south  of  France,  of 
the  Government? 

On  this  point  you  see  how  easy  recrimination  would  be. 

We  are  the  agents  of  England,  they  say,  because  some 
of  us  employ  the  words  meeting  and  free  trader! 

And  do  they  not  make  use  of  the  words  drawback 
and  budget? 

We,  it  would  seem,  imitate  Cobden  and  the  English 
democracy  I 

And  do  they  not  parody  Lord  George  Bentinck  and 
the  British  aristocracy? 

We  borrow  from  perfidious  Albion  the  doctrine  of 
liberty  I 

^  This  article  appeared  in  the  Courier  Frarifatsf  of  September,  1846, 
in  reply  to  articles  which  had  appeared  in  V Atelier. 

151 


152  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

And  do  they  not  borrow  from  the  same  source  the 
quibbles  of  protection  ? 

We  follow  the  lead  of  Bordeaux  and  the  south  I 

And  do  they  not  avail  themselves  of  the  cupidity  of 
Lille  and  the  north  ? 

We  favour  the  secret  designs  of  the  ministry,  whose 
object  is  to  divert  public  attention  from  their  real 
policy  ! 

And  do  they  not  act  in  the  interest  of  the  civil  list, 
which  profits  most  of  all  from  the  policy  of  protection  ? 

You  see,  then,  very  clearly,  that  if  we  did  not  despise 
this  war  of  disparagement,  arms  would  not  be  wanting 
to  carry  it  on. 

But  this  is  beside  the  question. 

The  question,  and  we  must  never  lose  sight  of  it, 
is  this  : — 

Whether  is  it  better  for  the  working  classes  to  be  free, 
or  not  to  be  free  to  purchase  foreign  cornmodities? 

Workmen  I  they  tell  you  that :  "If  you  are  free  to 
purchase  from  the  foreigner  those  things  which  you  now 
produce  yourselves,  you  will  cease  to  produce  them ;  you 
will  be  without  employment,  without  wages,  and  with- 
out bread.  It  is  therefore  for  your  own  good  to  restrain 
your  liberty." 

This  objection  recurs  in  every  form  :  They  say,  for 
example,  "  If  we  clothe  ourselves  with  English  cloth;  if 
we  make  our  ploughs  of  English  iron ;  if  we  cut  our  bread 
with  English  knives;  if  we  wipe  our  hands  with  English 
towels — what  will  become  of  French  workmen,  what  will 
become  of  national  labour?  '* 

Tell  me,  workmen  I  if  a  man  should  stand  on  the 
quay  at  Boulogne  and  say  to  every  Englishman  who 
landed,  "If  you  will  give  me  those  English  boots,  I  will 
give  you  this  French  hat";  or,  "If  you  will  give  me 
that  English  horse  I  will  give  you  this  French  tilbury  "; 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    WORKMEN         153 

or  ask  him,  "  Will  you  exchange  that  machine  made  at 
Birmingham  for  this  clock  made  at  Paris?";  or,  again, 
"  Can  you  arrange  to  barter  this  Newcastle  coal  against 
this  champagne  wine?  "  Tell  me  whether,  assuming  this 
man  to  make  his  proposals  with  discernment,  anyone 
would  be  justified  in  saying  that  our  national  labour,  taken 
in  the  aggregate,   would  suffer  in  consequence? 

Would  it  make  the  slightest  difference  in  this  respect 
were  twenty  such  offers  to  be  made  in  place  of  one,  or  a 
million  such  barters  to  be  effected  in  place  of  four,  or  were 
merchants  and  money  to  intervene,  whereby  such  trans- 
actions would  be  greatly  facilitated  and  multiplied? 

Now,  when  one  country  buys  from  another  wholesale 
to  sell  again  in  retail,  or  buys  in  retail  to  sell  again  in 
the  lump,  if  we  trace  the  transaction  to  its  ultimate  results 
we  shall  always  find  that  commerce  resolves  itself  into 
barter,  products  for  products,  services  for  services.  If, 
then,  barter  does  no  injury  to  national  labour,  since  it 
implies  as  much  national  labour  given  as  foreign  labour 
received,  it  follows  that  a  hundred  thousand  millions  of 
such  acts  of  barter  would  do  as  little  injury  as  one. 

But  where  would  be  the  profit?  you  will  ask.  The 
profit  consists  in  turning  to  most  account  the  resources  of 
each  country,  so  that  the  same  amount  of  labour  shall 
yield  everywhere  more  satisfaction  and  well-being. 

There  are  some  who  in  your  case  have  recourse  to  a 
singular  system  of  tactics.  They  begin  by  admitting  the 
superiority  of  the  free  to  the  prohibitive  system,  in 
order,  doubtless,  not  to  have  the  battle  to  fight  on  this 
ground. 

Then  they  remark  that  the  transition  from  one  system 
to  another  is  always  attended  with  some  displacement 
of  labour. 

Lastly,  they  enlarge  on  the  sufferings,  which,  in  their 
opinion,   such  displacements  must  always  entail.     They 


154  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

exaggerate  these  sufferings,  they  multiply  them,  they 
make  them  the  principle  subject  of  discussion,  they 
present  them  as  the  exclusive  and  definitive  result  of 
reform,  and  in  this  way  they  endeavour  to  enlist  you 
under  the  banners  of  monopoly. 

This  is  just  the  system  of  tactics  which  has  been 
employed  to  defend  every  system  of  abuse ;  and  one  thing 
I  must  plainly  avow  that  it  is  this  system  of  tactics  w^hich 
constantly  embarrasses  those  who  advocate  reforms,  even 
those  most  useful  to  the  people.  You  will  soon  see  the 
reason  of  this. 

When  an  abuse  has  once  taken  root  everything  is 
arranged  on  the  assumption  of  its  continuance.  Some 
men  depend  upon  it  for  subsistence,  others  depend  upon 
them,  and  so  on,  till  a  formidable  edifice  is  erected. 

Would  you  venture  to  pull  it  down  ?  All  cry  out, 
and — remark  this  well — the  men  who  bawl  out  appear 
always  at  first  sight  to  be  in  the  right,  because  it  is  far 
easier  to  show  the  derangements  which  must  accompany  a 
reform  than  the  arrangements  which  must  follow  it. 

The  supporters  of  abuses  cite  particular  instances  of 
sufferings;  they  point  out  particular  employers  who,  with 
their  workmen  and  the  people  w'ho  supply  them  with 
materials,  are  about  to  be  injured;  and  the  poor  reformer 
can  only  refer  to  the  general  good  which  must  gradually 
diffuse  itself  over  the  masses.  That  by  no  means  produces 
the  same  effect. 

Thus,  when  the  question  turns  on  the  abolition  of 
slavery,  "Poor  men  I  "  they  say  to  the  negroes,  "who 
is  henceforth  to  support  you  ?  The  manager  handles  the 
lash,  but  he  likewise  distributes  the  cassava.*' 

And  the  slave  regrets  his  chain,  for  he  asks,  **  Whence 
will  come  the  cassava?  " 

He  fails  to  see  that  it  is  not  the  manager  who  feeds  him, 
but  his  own  labour  which  feeds  both  him  and  the  manager. 


I 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    WORKMEN         155 

When  they  set  about  reforming  the  convents  in  Spain, 
they  asked  the  beggars :  *'  Where  will  you  now  find  food 
and  clothing?  The  prior  is  your  best  friend.  Is  it  not 
very  convenient  to  be  in  a  situation  to  address  yourselves 
to  him?'* 

And  the  mendicants  replied  :  **  True;  if  the  prior  goes 
away  we  see  very  clearly  that  we  shall  be  losers,  and 
we  do  not  see  at  all  so  clearly  who  is  to  come  in 
his  place." 

They  did  not  take  into  account  that,  if  the  convents 
bestowed  alms,  they  lived  upon  them ;  so  that  the  nation 
had  more  to  give  away  than  to  receive. 

In  the  same  way,  workmen  I  monopoly,  quite  imper- 
ceptibly, saddles  you  with  taxes,  and  then,  with  the 
produce  of  these  taxes,  finds  you  employment.^ 

And  your  sham  friends  exclaim  :  *'  But  for  monopolies 
where  would  you  find  employment?" 

And  you,  like  the  Spanish  beggars,  reply:  "True, 
true;  the  employment  which  the  monopolists  find  us  is 
certain.  The  promises  of  liberty  are  of  uncertain  ful- 
filment." 

For  you  do  not  see  that  they  take  from  you  in  the 
first  instance  the  money  with  part  of  which  they  after- 
wards afford  you  employment. 

You  ask  :  Who  is  to  find  you  employment?  And  the 
answer  is  that  you  will  give  employment  to  one  another  I 
With  the  money  of  which  he  is  no  longer  deprived  by 
taxation  the  shoemaker  will  dress  better,  and  give  employ- 
ment to  the  tailor.  The  tailor  will  .more  frequently  renew 
his  foot-gear,  and  afford  employment  to  the  shoemaker; 
and  the  same  thing  will  take  place  in  all  other  departments 
of  trade. 

It  has  been  said  that  under  a  system  of  free  trade  we 
should  have  fewer  workmen  in  our  mines  and  spinning- 
mills. 


156  FALLACIES    OF   PROTECTION 

I  do  not  think  so.  But  if  this  happened,  we  should 
necessarily  have  a  greater  number  of  people  working  freely 
and  independently,  either  in  their  own  houses  or  at  out- 
door employment. 

For  if  our  mines  and  spinning-mills  are  not  capable 
of  supporting  themselves,  as  is  asserted,  without  the  aid 
of  taxes  levied  from  the  public  at  large,  the  moment  these 
taxes  are  repealed  everybody  will  be  by  so  much  in  better 
circumstances;  and  it  is  this  improvement  in  the  general 
circumstances  of  the  community  which  lends  support  to 
individual  branches  of  industry. 

Pardon  my  dwelling  a  little  longer  on  this  view  of  the 
subject;  for  my  great  anxiety  is  to  see  you  all  ranged  on 
the  side  of  liberty. 

Suppose  that  the  capital  employed  in  manufactures 
yields  5  per  cent,  profit.  But  Mondor  has  an  establish- 
ment in  which  he  employs  ;^  100,000,  at  a  loss,  instead  of 
a  profit,  of  5  per  cent.  Between  the  loss  and  the  gain 
supposed  there  is  a  difference  of  ;{^  10,000.  What  takes 
place?  A  small  tax  of  ;£'io,ooo  is  coolly  levied  from  the 
public,  and  handed  over  to  Mondor.  You  don't  see  it,  for 
the  thing  is  skilfully  disguised.  It  is  not  the  taxgatherer 
who  waits  upon  you  to  demand  your  share  of  this  burden ; 
but  you  pay  it  to  Mondor,  the  ironmaster,  every  time 
that  you  purchase  your  trowels,  hatchets,  and  planes. 
Then  they  tell  you  that  unless  you  pay  this  tax,  Mondor 
will  not  be  able  to  give  employment;  and  his  workmen, 
James  and  John,  must  go  without  work.  And  yet,  if  they 
gave  up  the  tax,  it  would  enable  you  to  find  employment 
for  one  another,  independently  of  Mondor. 

And  then,  be  easy,  after  this  smooth  pillow  of  protec- 
tion has  been  taken  away,  Mondor  will  set  his  wits  to 
work  to  convert  his  loss  into  a  profit,  and  James  and  John 
will  not  be  sent  away,  in  which  case  there  will  be  profit 
for  everybody. 


I 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    WORKMEN         157 

You  may  still  rejoin,  "We  allow  that,  after  the  reform, 
there  will  be  more  employment,  upon  the  whole,  than 
before ;  in  the  meantime,  James  and  John  are  starving." 

To  which  I  reply  : 

ist. — That  when  labour  is  only  displaced,  to  be  aug- 
mented, a  man  who  has  a  head  and  hands  is  seldom  left 
long  in  a  state  of  destitution. 

2nd. — There  is  nothing  to  hinder  the  State's  reserving 
a  fund  to  meet,  during  the  transition,  any  temporary  want 
of  employment,  in  which,  however,  for  my  own  part,  I 
do  not  believe. 

3rd. — If  I  do  not  misunderstand  the  workmen,  they  are 
quite  prepared  to  encounter  any  temporary  suffering  neces- 
sarily attendant  on  a  transfer  of  labour  from  one  depart- 
ment to  another,  by  which  the  community  are  more  likely 
to  be  benefited  and  have  justice  done  them.  I  only  wish 
I  could  say  the  same  thing  of  their  employers  ! 

What !  will  it  be  said  that  because  you  are  workmen 
you  are  for  that  reason  unintelligent  and  immoral  ?  Your 
pretended  friends  seem  to  think  so.  Is  it  not  surprising 
that  in  your  hearing  they  should  discuss  such  a  question, 
talking  exclusively  of  wages  and  profits  without  ever  once 
allowing  the  word  justice  to  pass  their  lips  ?  And  yet  they 
know  that  restriction  is  unjust.  Why  have  they  not  the 
courage  to  admit  it,  and  say  to  you,  "Workmen!  an 
iniquity  prevails  in  this  country,  but  it  is  profitable  to  you, 
and  we  must  maintain  it."  Why  ?  because  they  know  you 
would  answer.  No. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  this  injustice  is  profitable  to  you. 
Give  me  your  attention  for  a  few  moments  longer,  and 
then  judge  for  yourselves. 

What  is  it  that  we  protect  in  France?  Things  which 
are  produced  on  a  great  scale  by  rich  capitalists  and  in 
large   establishments,    as    iron,    coal,    cloth,    and   textile 


158  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

fabrics;  and  they  tell  you  that  this  is  done,  not  in  the 
interest  of  employers,  but  in  yours,  and  in  order  to  secure 
you  employment. 

And  yet  whenever  foreign  labour  presents  itself  in  our 
markets,  in  such  a  shape  that  it  may  be  injurious  to  you 
but  advantageous  for  your  employers,  it  is  allowed  to  enter 
without  any  restriction  being  imposed. 

Are  there  not  in  Paris  thirty  thousand  Germans  who 
make  clothes  and  shoes?  Why  are  they  permitted  to 
establish  themselves  alongside  of  you  while  the  importation 
of  cloth  is  restricted  ?  Because  cloth  is  manufactured  in 
grand  establishments  which  belong  to  manufacturing  legis- 
lators. But  clothes  are  made  by  workmen  in  their  own 
houses.  In  converting  wool  into  cloth,  these  gentlemen 
desire  to  have  no  competition,  because  that  is  their  trade; 
but  in  converting  cloth  into  coats,  they  allow  it,  because 
that  is  your  trade. 

In  making  our  railways,  an  embargo  was  laid  on 
English  rails,  but  English  workmen  were  brought  over. 
Why  was  this?  Simply  because  English  rails  came  into 
competition  with  the  iron  produced  in  our  great  establish- 
ments, while  the  English  labourers  were  only  your  rivals. 

We  have  no  wish  that  German  tailors  and  English 
navvies  should  be  kept  out  of  France.  What  we  ask  is, 
that  the  entry  of  cloth  and  rails  should  be  left  free.  We 
simply  demand  justice  and  equality  before  the  law,  for  all. 

It  is  a  mockery  to  tell  us  that  customs  restrictions  are 
imposed  for  your  benefit.  Tailors,  shoemakers,  carpenters, 
masons,  blacksmiths,  shopkeepers,  grocers,  watchmakers, 
butchers,  bakers,  dressmakers !  I  defy  you  all  to  point  out 
a  single  way  in  which  restriction  is  profitable  to  you,  and 
I  shall  point  out,  whenever  you  desire  it,  four  ways  in 
which  it  is  hurtful  to  you. 

And,  after  all,  see  how  little  foundation  your  journalists 
have  for  attributing  self-abnegation  to  the  monopolists. 


TO    ARTISANS    AND    WORKMEN         159 

I  may  venture  to  denominate  the  rate  of  wages  which 
settles  and  establishes  itself  naturally  under  a  system  of 
freedom,  the  natural  rate  of  wages.  When  you  affirm, 
therefore,  that  restriction  is  profitable  to  you,  it  is  tanta- 
mount to  affirming  that  it  adds  an  overplus  to  your  natural 
wages.  Now,  a  surplus  of  wages  beyond  the  natural  rate 
must  come  from  some  quarter  or  other;  it  does  not  fall 
from  the  skies,   but  comes  from  those  who  pay  it. 

You  are  landed,  then,  in  this  conclusion  by  your  pre- 
tended friends,  that  the  policy  of  protection  has  been  in- 
troduced in  order  that  the  interests  of  capitalists  should  be 
sacrificed  to  those  of  the  workmen. 

Do  you  think  this  probable? 

Where  is  your  place,  then,  in  the  Chamber  of  Peers? 
When  did  you  take  your  seat  in  the  Palais  Bourbon? 
Who  has  consulted  you  ?  Whence  did  this  idea  of  estab- 
lishing a  policy  of  protection  come  to  you  ? 

I  think  I  hear  you  answer,  "It  is  not  we  who  have 
established  it.  Alas  !  we  are  neither  Peers,  nor  Deputies, 
nor  Councillors  of  State.    The  capitalists  have  done  it  all." 

Verily,  they  must  have  been  in  a  good  humour  that 
day  !  What !  these  capitalists  have  made  the  law ;  they 
have  established  a  policy  of  prohibition  for  the  express 
purpose  of  enabling  you  to  profit  at  their  expense  ! 

But  here  is  something  stranger  still. 

How  does  it  come  to  pass  that  your  pretended  friends, 
who  hold  forth  to  you  on  the  goodness,  the  generosity, 
and  the  self-abnegation  of  capitalists,  never  cease  con- 
doling with  you  on  your  being  deprived  of  your  political 
rights?  From  their  point  of  view,  I  would  ask  what 
you  could  make  of  such  rights  if  you  had  them  ?  The 
capitalists  have  a  monopoly  of  legislation — granted.  By 
means  of  this  monopoly,  they  have  adjudged  themselves 
a  monopoly  of  iron,  of  cloth,  of  textile  fabrics,  of  coal,  of 
wood,  of  meat — granted  likewise.     But  here  are  your  pre- 


i6o  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

tended  friends,  who  tell  you  that  in  acting  thus,  capitalists 
have  impoverished  themselves,  without  being  under  any 
obligation  to  do  so,  in  order  to  enrich  you  who  have  no 
right  to  be  enriched  !  Assuredly,  if  you  were  electors  and 
deputies  to-morrow,  you  could  not  manage  your  affairs 
better  than  they  are  managed  for  you ;  you  could  not 
even  manage  them  so  well. 

If  the  industrial  legislation  under  which  you  live  is 
intended  for  your  profit,  it  is  an  act  of  perfidy  to  demand 
for  you  political  rights ;  for  these  new-fashioned  democrats 
never  can  get  quit  of  this  dilemma — the  law  made  by  the 
middle  classes  either  gives  you  more,  or  it  gives  you  less 
than  your  natural  wages.  If  that  law  gives  you  less,  they 
deceive  you,  in  soliciting  you  to  maintain  it.  If  it  gives 
you  more,  they  still  deceive  you,  by  inviting  you  to 
demand  political  rights  at  the  very  time  when  they  are 
making  sacrifices  for  you,  which,  in  common  honesty,  you 
could  not  by  your  votes  exact,  even  if  you  had  the  power. 

Workmen  !  I  should  be  sorry  indeed  if  this  address 
sbould  excite  in  your  minds  feelings  of  irritation  against 
the  rich.  If  self-interest,  badly  understood,  or  too  apt  to 
be  alarmed,  still  maintains  monopoly,  let  us  not  forget  that 
monopoly  has  its  root  in  errors  which  are  common  to  both 
capitalists  and  workmen.  Instead  of  exciting  the  one  class 
against  the  other,  let  us  try  to  bring  them  together.  And 
for  that  end  what  ought  we  to  do  ?  If  it  be  true  that  the 
natural  social  tendencies  concur  in  levelling  inequalities 
among  men,  we  have  only  to  allow  these  tendencies  to  act, 
remove  artificial  obstructions  which  retard  their  operation, 
and  allow  the  relations  of  the  various  classes  of  society  to 
be  established  on  the  principle  of  Justice,  which,  in  my 
mind  at  least,  is  identical  with  the  principle  of  Liberty. 


CHAPTER    V 

A    CHINESE    STORY 

There  is  nothing  which  is  not  pretended  by  the  writers 
in  favour  of  Protection  to  be  established  as  an  aid  to  the 
working  classes — there  is  positively  no  exception,  not 
even  the  custom  house.  You  fancy,  perhaps,  that  the 
custom  house  is  merely  an  instrument  of  taxation  like 
the  town  dues  or  the  toll-bar  I  Nothing  of  the  kind.  It 
is  essentially  an  institution  for  promoting  the  march  of 
civilisation,  fraternity,  and  equality.  What  would  you 
be  at?  It  is  the  fashion  to  introduce,  or  affect  to  intro- 
duce, sentiment  and  sentimentalism  everywhere,  even  into 
the  toll-gatherer's  booth. 

The  custom  house,  we  must  allow,  has  a  very  singular 
machinery  for   realising   philanthropical  aspirations. 

It  includes  an  army  of  directors,  sub-directors,  in- 
spectors, sub-inspectors,  comptrollers,  examiners,  heads 
of  departments,  clerks,  supernumeraries,  aspirant-super- 
numeraries, not  to  speak  of  the  officers  of  the  active 
service;  and  the  object  of  all  this  complicated  machinery 
is  to  exercise  over  the  industry  of  the  people  a  negative 
action,  which  is  summed  up  in  the  word  obstruct. 

Observe,  I  do  not  say  that  the  object  is  to  tax^  but 
to  obstruct.  To  prevent,  not  acts  which  are  repugnant 
to  good  morals  or  public  order,  but  transactions  which 
are  in  themselves  not  only  harmless  but  fitted  to  maintain 
peace  and  union  among  nations. 

And  yet  the  human  race  is  so  flexible  and  elastic  that 
it  always  surmounts  these  obstructions.  And  then  we 
hear  of  the  labour  market  being  glutted. 

L  l6l 


i62  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

If  you  hinder  a  people  from  obtaining  its  subsistence 
from  abroad  it  will  produce  it  at  home.  The  labour  is 
greater  and  more  painful,  but  subsistence  must  be  had. 
If  you  hinder  a  man  from  traversing  the  valley  he  must 
cross  the  hills.  The  road  is  longer  and  more  difficult, 
but  he  must  get  to  his  journey's  end. 

This  is  lamentable,  but  we  come  now  to  what  is 
ludicrous.  When  the  law  has  thus  created  obstacles, 
and  when  in  order  to  overcome  them  society  has  diverted 
a  corresponding  amount  of  labour  from  other  employ- 
ments, you  are  not  longer  permitted  to  demand  a  reform. 
If  you  point  to  the  obstacle  you  are  told  of  the  amount 
of  labour  to  which  it  has  given  employment.  And  if 
you  rejoin  that  this  labour  is  not  created,  but  displaced, 
you  are  answered  in  the  words  of  the  Esprit  Public,  ''  The 
impoverishment  alone  is  certain  and  immediate;  as  to 
our  enrichment,  it  is  more  than  problematical." 

This  reminds  me  of  a  Chinese  story,  which  I  will  relate 
to  you. 

There  were  in  China  two  large  towns,  called  Tchin 
and  Tchan.  A  magnificent  canal  united  them.  The 
Emperor  thought  fit  to  order  enormous  blocks  of  stone  to 
be  thrown  into  it  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  it  useless. 

On  seeing  this,  Kouang,  his  first  mandarin,  said  to 
him  :  — 

"Son  of  Heaven!   this  is  a  mistake." 

To  which  the  Emperor  replied  :  — 

"  Kouang,   you  talk  nonsense." 

I  give  you  only  the  substance  of  their  conversation. 

At  the  end  of  three  months  the  Celestial  Emperor  sent 
again  for  the  mandarin,  and  said  to  him  :  — 

'*  Kouang,  behold!  " 

And  Kouang  opened  his  eyes,  and  looked. 

And  he  saw  at  some  distance  from  the  canal  a  multitude 
of   men    at   work.     Some  were   excavating,    others   were 


A    CHINESE   STORY  163 

filling  up  hollows,  levelling  and  paving.  And  the 
mandarin,  who  was  very  cultivated,  said  to  himself  :  They 
are  making  a  highway. 

When  other  three  months  had  elapsed  the  Emperor 
again  sent  for  Kouang,  and  said  to  him  :  — 

"Look!  " 

And  Kouang  looked. 

And  he  saw  the  road  completed,  and  from  one  end 
of  it  to  the  other  he  saw  here  and  there  inns  for 
travellers  erected.  Crowds  of  pedestrians,  carts,  palan- 
quins, came  and  went,  and  innumerable  Chinese,  over- 
come with  fatigue,  carried  backwards  and  forwards  heavy 
burdens  from  Tchin  to  Tchan,  and  from  Tchan  to  Tchin, 
And  Kouang  said  to  himself :  It  is  the  destruction  of 
the  canal  which  gives  employment  to  these  poor  people. 
But  the  idea  never  struck  him  that  their  labour  was 
simply  diverted  from  other  employments. 

Three  months  more  passed,  and  the  Emperor  said  to 
Kouang  : — 

*'Look!  " 

And  Kouang  looked. 

And  he  saw  that  the  hostelries  were  full  of  travellers, 
and  that  to  supply  their  wants  there  were  grouped  around 
them  butchers'  and  bakers'  stalls,  shops  for  the  sale  of 
edible  birds'  nests.  He  also  saw  that,  the  artisans 
having  need  of  clothing,  there  had  settled  among  them 
tailors,  shoemakers,  and  those  who  sold  parasols  and 
fans;  and  as  they  could  not  sleep  in  the  open  air,  even 
in  the  Celestial  Empire,  there  were  also  masons,  car- 
penters, and  slaters.  Then  there  were  officers  of  police, 
judges,  fakirs;  in  a  word,  a  town  with  its  suburbs  had 
risen  round  each  hostelry. 

And  the  Emperor  asked  Kouang  what  he  thought  of 
all  this. 

And  Kouang  said  that  he  never  could  have  imagined 


i64  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

that  the  destruction  of  a  canal  could  have  provided  em- 
ployment for  so  many  people;  for  the  thought  never 
struck  him  that  this  was  not  employment  created  but 
labour  diverted  from  other  employments,  and  that  men 
would  have  eaten  and  drank  in  passing  along  the  canal 
as  well  as  in  passing  along  the  highroad. 

However,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  Chinese,  the  Son 
of  Heaven  at  length  died  and  was  buried. 

His  successor  sent  for  Kouang,  and  ordered  him  to 
have  the  canal  cleared  out  and  restored. 

And  Kouang  said  to  the  new  Emperor:  — 

*'  Son  of  Heaven  !   you  commit  a  blunder." 

And  the  Emperor  replied  :  — 

"  Kouang,  you  talk  nonsense." 

But  Kouang  persisted,  and  said  :  "  Sire,  what  is  your 
object?" 

"  My  object  is  to  facilitate  the  transit  of  goods  and 
passengers  between  Tchin  and  Tchan,  to  render  carriage 
less  expensive,  in  order  that  the  people  may  have  tea 
and  clothing  cheaper." 

But  Kouang  was  ready  with  his  answer.  He  had 
received  the  night  before  several  numbers  of  the  Moniteur 
Industriel,  a  Chinese  newspaper.  Knowing  his  lesson 
well,  he  asked  and  obtained  permission  to  reply,  and 
after  having  prostrated  himself  nine  times,  he  said  :  — 

"Sire,  your  object  is,  by  increased  facility  of  transit, 
to  reduce  the  price  of  articles  of  consumption,  and  bring 
them  within  reach  of  the  people;  and  to  effect  that  you 
begin  by  taking  away  from  them  all  the  employment  to 
which  the  destruction  of  the  canal  had  given  rise.  Sire, 
in  political  economy,  nominal  cheapness " 

The  Emperor:  **  I  believe  you  are  repeating  by  rote." 

Kouang:  *' True,  Sire;  and   it  will  be  better  to  read 

what  I  have  to  say."     So,  producing  the  Esprit  Public, 

he  read  as  follows:    "In  political  economy,  the  nominal 


A    CHINESE   STORY  165 

cheapness  of  articles  of  consumption  is  only  a  secondary- 
question.  The  problem  is  to  establish  an  equilibrium 
between  the  price  of  labour  and  that  of  the  means  of 
subsistence.  The  abundance  of  labour  constitutes  the 
wealth  of  nations;  and  the  best  economic  system  is  that 
which  supplies  the  people  with  the  greatest  amount  of 
employment.  The  question  is  not  whether  it  is  better  to 
pay  four  or  eight  cash  for  a  cup  of  tea,  or  five  or  ten 
taels  (Chinese  money)  for  a  shirt.  These  are  puerilities 
unworthy  of  a  thinking  mind.  Nobody  disputes  your 
proposition.  The  question  is  whether  it  is  better  to  pay 
dearer  for  a  commodity  you  want  to  buy,  and  have, 
through  the  abundance  of  employment  and  the  higher 
price  of  labour,  the  means  of  acquiring  it;  or  whether  it 
is  better  to  limit  the  sources  of  employment,  and  with 
them  the  mass  of  the  national  population,  in  order  to 
transport,  by  improved  means  of  transity  the  objects  of 
consumption,  cheaper,  it  is  true,  but  taking  away  at  the 
same  time  from  many  of  our  people  the  means  of  pur- 
chasing these  objects  even  at  their  reduced  price. 

Seeing  the  Emperor  still  unconvinced,  Kouang  added : 
"Sire,  deign  to  give  me  your  attention.  I  have  still 
the  Moniteur  Industriel  to  bring  under  your  notice." 

But  the  Emperor  said:  — 

"  I  don't  require  your  Chinese  journals  to  enable  me 
to  find  out  that  to  create  obstacles  is  to  divert  and  mis- 
apply labour.  But  that  is  not  my  mission.  Go  and 
clear  out  the  canal ;  and  we  shall  reform  the  custom  house 
afterwards." 

And  Kouang  went  away  tearing  his  beard,  and  appeal- 
ing to  his  God,  **  O  Fo  !  take  pity  on  thy  people ;  for  we 
have  now  got  an  Emperor  of  the  English  school,  and  I  see 
clearly  that  in  a  short  time  we  shall  be  in  want  of  every- 
thing, for  we  shall  no  longer  require  to  do  anything." 


CHAPTER    VI 

POST  HOC,    ERGO  PROPTER  HOC 

This  is  the  greatest  and  most  common  fallacy  in  reasoning. 

Real  sufferings,  for  example,  have  manifested  them- 
selves in  England/ 

These  sufferings  come  in  the  train  of  two  other 
phenomena : 

I  St,  The  reformed  tariff; 

2nd,  Two  bad  harvests  in  succession. 

To  which  of  these  two  last  circumstances  are  we  to 
attribute  the  first? 

The  protectionists  exclaim  : 

It  is  this  accursed  free  trade  which  does  all  the  harm. 
It  promised  us  wonderful  things;  we  accepted  it;  and  here 
are  our  manufactures  at  a  standstill,  and  the  people  suffer- 
ing :  Cum  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc. 

Free  trade  distributes  in  the  most  uniform  and  equit- 
able manner  the  fruits  which  Providence  accords  to  human 
labour.  If  we  are  deprived  of  part  of  these  fruits  by- 
natural  causes,  such  as  a  succession  of  bad  seasons,  free 
trade  does  not  fail  to  distribute  in  the  same  manner  what 
remains.  Men  are,  no  doubt,  not  so  well  provided  with 
what  they  want ;  but  are  we  to  impute  this  to  free  trade,  or 
to  the  bad  harvests? 

Liberty  acts  on  the  same  principle  as  insurance.  When 
an  accident,  like  a  fire,  happens,  insurance  spreads  over  a 
great  number  of  men  and  a  great  number  of  years,  losses 
which,  in  the  absence  of  insurance,  would  have  fallen  all 
at  once  upon  one  individual.     But  will  anyone  undertake 

»  This  was  written  in  December,  1846.— French  Editor. 

166 


POST   HOC,    ERGO    PROPTER   HOC         167 

to  affirm  that  fire  has  become  a  greater  evil  since  the 
introduction  of  insurance  ? 

In  1842,  1843,  and  1844,  the  reduction  of  taxes  began 
in  England.  At  the  same  time  the  harvests  were  very 
abundant;  and  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  these  two 
circumstances  concurred  in  producing  the  unparalleled 
prosperity  which  England  enjoyed  during  that  period. 

In  1845  the  harvest  was  bad,  and  in  1846  worse  still. 

Provisions  rose  in  price;  and  the  people  were  forced 
to  expend  their  resources  on  necessaries,  and  to  limit 
their  consumption  of  other  commodities.  Clothing  was 
less  in  demand,  manufactories  had  less  work,  and  wages 
tended  to  fall. 

Fortunately,  in  that  same  year,  the  barriers  of  restric- 
tion were  still  more  effectually  removed,  and  an  enormous 
quantity  of  provisions  reached  the  English  market.  Had 
this  not  been  so,  it  is  nearly  certain  that  a  formidable 
revolution  would  have  taken  place. 

And  yet  free  trade  is  blamed  for  disasters  which  it 
tended  to  prevent,  and  in  part,  at  least,  to  repair  ! 

A  poor  leper  lived  in  solitude.  Whatever  he  happened 
to  touch,  no  one  else  would  touch.  Obliged  to  pine  in 
solitude,  he  led  a  miserable  existence.  An  eminent  phy- 
sician cured  him,  and  now  our  poor  hermit  was  admitted 
to  all  the  benefits  of  free  trade,  and  had  full  liberty  to 
effect  exchanges.  What  brilliant  prospects  were  opened 
to  him  !  He  delighted  in  calculating  the  advantages 
which,  through  his  restored  intercourse  with  his  fellow- 
men,  he  was  able  to  derive  from  his  own  vigorous  exer- 
tions. He  happened  to  break  both  his  arms,  and  was 
landed  in  poverty  and  misery.  The  journalists  who  were 
witnesses  of  that  misery  said,  "See  to  what  this  liberty  of 
making  exchanges  has  reduced  him  !  Verily,  he  was  less 
to  be  pitied  when  he  lived  alone."  "What!"  said  the 
physician,    "do   you   make   no  allowance   for   his  broken 


i68  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

arms  ?  Has  that  accident  nothing  to  do  with  his  present 
unhappy  state?  His  misfortune  arises  from  his  having 
lost  the  use  of  his  hands,  and  not  from  his  having  been 
cured  of  his  leprosy.  He  would  have  been  a  fitter  subject 
for  your  compassion  had  he  been  lame  and  leprous  into  the 
bargain." 

Post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc.     Beware  of  that  fallacy. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    PREMIUM    THEFT 

This  little  book  of  Fallacies  is  found  to  be  too  theoretical, 
scientific,  and  metaphysical.  Be  it  so.  Let  us  try  the 
effect  of  a  more  trivial  and  hackneyed,  and,  if  necessary,  a 
ruder  style.  Convinced  that  the  public  is  duped  in  this 
matter  of  protection,  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove  it.  But 
if  outcry  is  preferred  to  argument,  let  us  vociferate, 
"King  Midas  has  a  snout,  and  asses'  ears."  ^ 

A  burst  of  plain  speaking  has  more  effect  frequently 
than  the  most  polished  circumlocution.  You  remember 
Oronte,  and  the  difficulty  which  the  Misanthrope  had  in 
convincing  him  of  his  folly.' 

Alceste.  On  s'expose  a  jouer  un  mauvais  personnage. 
Oronte.    Est-ce  que  vous  voulez  me  declarer  par  la 

Que  j'ai  tort  de  vouloir.     .     .     , 
Alceste.  Je  ne  dis  pas  cela. 

Mais     .... 
Oronte.    Est-ce  que  j'ecris  mal  ? 
Alceste.  Je  ne  dis  pas  cela. 

Mais  enfin     .... 
Oronte.    Mais  ne  puis-je  savoir  ce  que  dans  mon  sonnet  ?    .    .    . 
Alceste.  Franchement,  il  est  bon  k  mettre  au  Cabinet. 

To  speak  plainly,  Good  Public  !  you  are  robbed.  This 
is  speaking  bluntly,  but  the  thing  is  very  evident.  It  is 
crude,  but  clear. 

The  words  theft ^  to  steal,  robbery,  thief,  may  appear 
ugly  words  to  many  people.     I  ask  such  people,  as  Har- 

^  *•  Auriculas  asini  Mida  rex  habet.'' — Persius,  sat.  i.     The  line  as 
given  in  the  text  is  from  Dryden's  translation. — Translator. 
*  See  Moliere's  play  of  The  Misanthrofe. — Translator. 

169 


I70  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

pagon  asks  Elise/  "Is  it  the  word  or  the  thing  which 
frightens  you  ?  " 

"Whoever  has  possessed  himself  fraudulently  of  a 
thing  which  does  not  belong  to  him  is  guilty  of  theft." 
(C  Pen.,  art,  379.) 

To  steal:  To  take  by  stealth  or  by  force.  {Dictionnaire 
de  r Academic.) 

Thief:  He  who  exacts  more  than  is  due  to  him.     (lb.) 

Now,  does  not  the  monopolist,  who,  by  a  law  of  his 
own  making,  obliges  me  to  pay  him  20  francs  for  what  I 
could  get  elsewhere  for  15,  take  from  me  fraudulently 
5  francs  which  belonged  to  me? 

Does  he  not  take  them  by  stealth  or  by  force  ? 

Does  he  not  exact  more  than  is  due  to  him  ? 

He  takes,  purloins,  exacts,  it  may  be  said;  but  not 
by  stealth  or  by  force,  which  are  the  characteristics  of 
theft. 

When  our  bulletins  de  contributions  have  included 
in  them  5  francs  for  the  premium  which  the  monopolist 
takes,  exacts,  or  abstracts,  what  can  be  more  stealthy 
for  the  unsuspecting?  And  for  those  who  are  not 
dupes,  and  who  do  suspect,  what  savours  more  of  force, 
seeing  that  on  the  first  refusal  the  taxgatherer's  bailiff 
is  at  the  door? 

But  let  monopolists  take  courage.  Premium  thefts, 
tariff  thefts,  if  they  violate  equity  as  much  as  theft  a 
VAmericaine,  do  not  violate  the  law ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  perpetrated  according  to  law ;  and  if  they  are  worse 
than  common  thefts,  they  do  not  come  under  the  cogniz- 
ance of  the  magistrate. 

Besides,   willingly  or  unwillingly,   we  are  all  robbed 

or  robbers  in  this  business.     The  author  of  this  volume 

might  very  well  cry  "Stop,  thief!"  when  he  buys;  and 

with  equal   reason   he  might  have  that  cry  addressed  to 

1   See  Moliere's  play  of  VAvare. — Translator. 


THE    PREMIUM   THEFT  171 

him  when  he  sells  ;^  and  if  he  is  in  a  situation  different 
from  that  of  many  of  his  countrymen,  the  difference  con- 
sists in  this,  that  he  knows  that  he  loses  more  than  he 
gains  by  the  game,  and  they  don't  know  it.  If  they 
knew  it,  the  game  would  soon  be  given  up. 

Nor  do  I  boast  of  being  the  first  to  give  the  thing 
its  right  name.  Adam  Smith  said,  sixty  years  ago,  that 
"when  manufacturers  hold  meetings,  we  may  be  sure  a  plot 
is  hatching  against  the  pockets  of  the  public."  Can  we  be 
surprised  at  this,  when  the  public  says  nothing? 

Well,  then,  suppose  a  meeting  of  manufacturers  de- 
liberating formally,  under  the  title  of  general  councils. 
What  takes  place,  and  what  is  resolved  upon  ? 

Here  is  a  very  abridged  report  of  one  of  their  meetings  : 

"Shipowner:  Our  shipping  is  at  the  lowest  ebb. 
That  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  I  cannot  construct  ships 
without  iron.  I  can  buy  it  in  the  market  of  the  world 
at  10  francs;  but  by  law  the  French  ironmaster  forces 
me  to  pay  him  15  francs,  which  takes  5  francs  out  of  my 
pocket.  I  demand  liberty  to  purchase  iron  wherever  I 
see  proper. 

"Ironmaster:  In  the  market  of  the  world  I  find 
freights  at  20  francs.  By  law  I  am  obliged  to  pay  the 
French  shipowner  30;  he  takes  10  francs  out  of  my  pocket. 
He  robs  me,  and  I  rob  him ;  all  quite  right. 

"Statesman  :  The  shipowner  has  arrived  at  an  unwise 
conclusion.  Let  us  cultivate  the  union  which  constitutes 
our  strength.  If  we  give  up  a  single  point  of  the  theory 
of  protection,  the  whole  theory  falls  to  the  ground. 

"Shipowner:  For  us  shipowners  protection  has  been 
a  failure.     I  repeat  that  shipping  is  at  its  lowest  ebb. 

^  Possessing  some  landed  property,  on  which  he  lives,  he  belongs  to 
the  -protected  class.  This  circumstance  should  disarm  criticism.  It  shows 
that  if  he  uses  hard  words,  they  are  directed  against  the  thing  itself,  and 
not  against  men's  intentions  or  motives. 


172  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

"Shipmaster:  Well,  let  us  raise  the  surtaxe,^  and  let 
the  shipowner  who  now  exacts  30  francs  from  the  public 
for  his  freight  charge  40. 

"A  Minister:  The  government  will  make  all  the  use 
they  can  of  the  beautiful  mechanism  of  the  surtaxe ;  but  I 
fear  that  v/ill  not  be  sufficient. 

"  A  Government  Functionary  :  You  are  all  very  easily 
frightened.  Does  the  tariff  alone  protect  you  ?  and  do  you 
lay  taxation  out  of  account  ?  If  the  consumer  is  kind  and 
benevolent,  the  taxpayer  is  not  less  so.  Let  us  heap  taxes 
upon  him,  and  let  the  shipowner  be  satisfied.  I  propose 
a  premium  of  5  francs  to  be  levied  from  the  public  tax- 
payers, to  be  handed  over  to  the  shipbuilder  for  each  cwt. 
of  iron  he  shall  employ. 

"  Confused  voices :  Agreed !  agreed !  An  agricul- 
turist: Three  francs  premium  upon  each  hectolitre  of  corn 
for  me!  A  manufacturer:  Two  francs  premium  on  each 
yard  of  cloth  for  me  !  etc.,  etc. 

"The  President:  This  then  is  what  we  have  agreed 
upon.  Our  session  has  instituted  a  system  of  premiums, 
and  it  will  be  its  eternal  honour.  What  branch  of  industry 
can  possibly  henceforth  be  a  loser,  since  we  have  two 
means,  and  both  so  very  simple,  of  converting  our  losses 
into  gains — the  tariff  and  the  premium  ?  The  sitting  is 
adjourned." 

I  really  think  some  supernatural  vision  must  have  fore- 
shadowed to  me  in  a  dream  the  near  approach  of  the 
premium  (who  knows  but  I  may  have  first  suggested  the 
idea  to  M.  Dupin  ?)  when  six  months  ago  I  wrote  these 
words : 

"It  appears  evident  to  me  that  protection,  without 
changing  its  nature  or  the  effects  which  it  produces,  might 
take  the  form  of  a  direct  tax,  levied  by  the  state,  and  dis- 

[^  A  discriminating  duty  on  goods  coming  in  under  a  foreign  flag,] 


THE    PREMIUM   THEFT  173 

tributed  in  premiums  of  indemnification  among  privileged 
branches  of  industry." 

And  after  comparing  a  protective  duty  to  a  premium, 
I  added  : 

"I  confess  candidly  my  preference  for  the  last  system. 
It  seems  to  me  juster,  more  economical,  and  more  fair. 
Juster,  because  if  society  desires  to  make  presents  to  some 
of  its  members,  all  ought  to  bear  the  expense;  more 
economical,  because  it  would  save  a  great  deal  in  the  cost 
of  collection,  and  do  away  with  many  of  the  trammels 
with  which  trade  is  hampered;  more  fair,  because  the 
public  would  see  clearly  the  nature  of  the  operation,  and 
act  accordingly."^ 

Since  the  occasion  presents  itself  to  us  so  opportunely, 
let  us  study  this  system  of  plunder  by  premium;  for  all  we 
say  of  it  applies  equally  to  the  system  of  plunder  by  tariff ; 
and  as  the  latter  is  a  little  better  concealed,  the  direct  may 
help  us  to  detect  and  expose  the  indirect  system  of  cheat- 
ing. The  mind  will  thus  be  led  from  what  is  simple  to 
what  is  more  complicated. 

But  it  may  be  asked  :  Is  there  not  a  species  of  theft 
which  is  more  simple  still  ?  Undoubtedly ;  there  is  high- 
way robbery,  which  wants  only  to  be  legalised,  and  made 
a  monopoly  of,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  present  day, 
organised. 

I  have  been  reading  what  follows  in  a  book  of  travels  : 

"When  we  reached  the  kingdom  of  A.,  all  branches  of 
industry  declared  themselves  in  a  state  of  suffering.  Agri- 
culture groaned,  manufactures  complained,  trade  mur- 
mured, the  shipping  interest  grumbled,  and  the  govern- 
ment were  at  a  loss  what  to  do.  First  of  all,  the  idea  was 
to  lay  a  pretty  smart  tax  on  all  the  malcontents,  and  after- 
wards to  divide  the  proceeds  among  them  after  retaining 
its  own  quota;  this  would  have  been  on  the  principle  of 

^  First  series,  ch.   v.   anU. 


174  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

the  Spanish  lottery.  There  are  a  thousand  of  you,  and 
the  State  takes  a  piastre  from  each ;  then  by  sleight  of 
hand  it  conveys  away  250  piastres,  and  divides  the  remain- 
ing 750  in  larger  and  smaller  proportions  among  the  ticket- 
holders.  The  gallant  Hidalgo  who  gets  three-fourths  of 
a  piastre,  forgetting  that  he  had  contributed  a  whole 
piastre,  cannot  conceal  his  delight,  and  rushes  off  to  spend 
his  fifteen  reals  at  the  alehouse.  This  is  very  much  the 
same  thing  as  we  see  taking  place  in  France.  But  the 
government  had  overrated  the  stupidity  of  the  population 
when  it  endeavoured  to  make  them  accept  such  a  species 
of  protection,  and  at  length  it  lighted  upon  the  following 
expedient. 

"The  country  was  covered  with  a  network  of  highroads. 
The  government  had  these  roads  accurately  measured ;  and 
then  it  announced  to  the  agriculturist :  '  All  that  you  can 
steal  from  travellers  between  these  two  points  is  yours; 
let  that  serve  as  a  premium  for  your  protection  and  en- 
couragement.' Afterwards  it  assigned  to  each  manu- 
facturer, to  each  shipowner,  a  certain  portion  of  road,  to 
be    made    available    for    their    profit,    according    to    this 

formula : 

Dono  tibi  et  concede 
Virtutem  et  puissantiam 

Volandi, 

Pillandi, 

Derobandi, 

Filoutandi, 

Et  escroquandi, 
Impunfe  per  totam  istam 
Viam." 

Now  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  natives  of  the  king- 
dom of  A.  have  become  so  habituated  to  this  system,  that 
they  take  into  account  only  what  they  are  enabled  to  steal, 
not  what  is  stolen  from  them,  being  so  determined  to 
regard  pillage  only  from  the  standpoint  of  the  thief,  that 


THE    PREMIUM   THEFT  i75 

they  look  upon  the  sum  total  of  individual  thefts  as  a 
national  gain,  and  refuse  to  abandon  a  system  of  pro- 
tection,  without  which  they  say  no  branch  of  industry 
could  support  itself. 

You  demur  to  this.  It  is  not  possible,  you  exclaim, 
that  a  whole  people  should  be  led  to  ascribe  a  redundancy 
of  wealth  to  mutual  robbery. 

And  why  not?  We  see  that  this  conviction  pervades 
France,  and  that  we  are  constantly  organising  and  im- 
proving the  system  of  reciprocal  robbery  under  the  re- 
spectable names  of  premiums  and  protective  tariffs. 

We  must  not,  however,  be  guilty  of  exaggeration.  As 
regards  the  mode  of  levying,  and  other  collateral  circum- 
stances, the  system  adopted  in  the  kingdom  of  A.  may 
be  worse  than  ours;  but  we  must  at  the  same  time  admit 
that,  as  regards  the  principle  and  its  necessary  conse- 
quences, there  is  not  an  atom  of  difference  between  all 
these  species  of  theft,  which  are  organised  by  law  for 
the  purpose  of  supplementing  the  profits  of  particular 
branches  of  industry. 

Remark  also,  that  if  highway  robbery  presents  some 
inconveniences  in  its  actual  perpetration,  it  has  likewise 
some  advantages  which  we  do  not  find  in  robbery  by 
tariff. 

For  example,  it  is  possible  to  make  an  equitable  division 
among  all  the  producers.  It  is  not  so  in  the  case  of 
customs  duties.  The  latter  are  incapable  of  protecting  cer- 
tain classes  of  society,  such  as  artisans,  shopkeepers,  men 
of  letters,  lawyers,  soldiers,  labourers,  etc. 

It  is  true  that  the  robbery  by  premium  assumes  an  in- 
finite number  of  shapes,  and  in  this  respect  is  not  inferior 
to  highway  robbery;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  leads  fre- 
quently to  results  so  whimsical  and  awkward  that  the 
natives  of  the  kingdom  of  A.  may  well  laugh  at  us. 

What  the  victim  of  a  highway  robbery  loses  the  thief 


176  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

gains,  and  the  articles  stolen  remain  in  the  country.  But 
under  the  system  of  robbery  by  premium,  what  the  tax 
exacts  from  the  Frenchman  is  conferred  frequently  on 
the  Chinese,  on  the  Hottentots,  on  the  Caffres,  etc.,  and 
here  is  the  way  in  which  this  takes  place  : 

A  piece  of  cloth,  we  will  suppose,  is  worth  loo  francs 
at  Bordeaux.  It  cannot  be  sold  below  that  price  without 
a  loss.  It  is  impossible  to  sell  it  above  that  price  because 
the  competition  of  merchants  prevents  the  price  rising. 
In  these  circumstances,  if  a  Frenchman  desires  to  have 
the  cloth,  he  must  pay  lOO  francs,  or  want  it.  But  if  it 
is  an  Englishman  who  wants  the  cloth,  the  government 
steps  in,  and  says  to  the  merchant,  "Sell  your  cloth,  and 
we  will  get  you  20  francs  from  the  taxpayers."  The  mer- 
chant who  could  not  get  more  than  100  francs  for  his  cloth, 
sells  it  to  the  Englishman  for  80.  This  sum,  added  to  the 
20  francs  produced  by  the  premium  theft,  makes  all  square. 
This  is  exactly  the  same  case  as  if  the  taxpayers  had  given 
20  francs  to  the  Englishman,  upon  condition  of  his  buying 
French  cloth  at  20  francs  discount,  at  20  francs  below  the 
cost  of  production,  at  20  francs  below  what  it  has  cost 
ourselves.  The  robbery  by  premium,  then,  has  this  pecu- 
liarity, that  the  people  robbed  are  resident  in  the  country 
which  tolerates  it,  while  the  people  who  profit  by  the 
robbery  are  scattered  over  the  wo'rld. 

Verily,  it  is  marvellous  that  people  should  persist  in 
maintaining  that  all  which  an  individual  steals  from  the 
masses  is  a  general  gain.  Perpetual  motion,  the  philoso- 
pher's stone,  the  quadrature  of  the  circle,  are  antiquated 
problems;  but  the  theory  of  progress  by  plunder  is  still 
held  in  honour.  A  priori,  we  should  have  thought  that,  of 
all  imaginable  puerilities,  it  was  the  least  likely  to  survive. 

Some  people  will  say.  You  are  partisans,  then,  of  the 
letting  alone  economists  of  the  school  of  Smith  and  Say  ? 
You    do    not    desire    the    organisation    of    labour.      Yes, 


THE    PREMIUM   THEFT  177 

gentlemen,  organise  labour  as  much  as  you  choose,  but 
have  the  goodness  not  to  organise  theft. 

Another,  and  a  more  numerous,  set  keep  repeating, 
premiums,  tariffs,  all  that  has  been  exaggerated.  We 
should  use  them  without  abusing  them.  A  judicious 
liberty,  combined  with  a  moderate  protection,  that  is  what 
discreet  and  practical  men  desire.  Let  us  steer  clear  of 
fixed  principles. 

This  is  precisely  what  the  traveller  tells  us  takes  place 
in  the  kingdom  of  A.  "Highway  robbery,"  say  the  sages, 
"is  neither  good  nor  bad  in  itself;  that  depends  upon  cir- 
cumstances. All  we  are  concerned  with  is  to  weigh  things, 
and  see  our  functionaries  well  paid  for  the  work  of  weigh- 
ing. It  may  be  that  we  have  given  too  great  latitude  to 
pillage;  perhaps  we  have  not  given  enough.  Let  us  ex- 
amine and  balance  the  accounts  of  each  man  employed  in 
the  work  of  pillage.  To  those  who  do  not  earn  enough, 
let  us  assign  a  larger  portion  of  the  road.  To  those  who 
gain  too  much,  we  must  limit  the  hours,  days  or  months 
of  pillage." 

Those  who  talk  in  this  way  gain  a  great  reputation  for 
moderation,  prudence,  and  good  sense.  They  never  fail 
to  attain  to  the  highest  offices  in  the  state. 

Those  who  say  :  Repress  all  injustice,  whether  "on  a 
greater  or  a  smaller  scale,  suffer  no  dishonesty,  to  how- 
ever small  an  extent,  are  marked  down  for  ideologues,  idle 
dreamers,  who  keep  repeating  over  and  over  again  the 
same  thing.  The  people,  moreover,  find  their  arguments 
too  clear,  and  why  should  they  be  expected  to  believe 
what  is  so  easily  understood  ? 


CHAPTER     VIII 

THE    TAXGATHERER 

Jacques   Bonhomme,    a    Vinedresser, 
M.   Lasouche,   Taxgatherer. 

L. :   You  have  secured  twenty  tuns  of  wine? 

J.:   Yes;  by  dint  of  my  own  skill  and  labour. 

L.  :  Have  the  goodness  to  deliver  up  to  me  six  of 
the  best. 

J. :  Six  tuns  out  of  twenty  !  Good  Heaven  !  you  are 
going  to  ruin  me.  And  please,  Sir,  for  what  purpose 
do  you  intend  them  ? 

L. :  The  first  will  be  handed  over  to  the  creditors  of 
the  State.  When  people  have  debts,  the  least  thing  they 
can  do  is  to  pay  interest  upon  them. 

J.  :  And  what  has  become  of  the  capital  ? 

L.  :  That  is  too  long  a  story  to  tell  you  at  present. 
One  part  was  converted  into  cartridges,  which  emitted  the 
most  beautiful  smoke  in  the  world.  Another  went  to  pay 
the  men  who  had  got  crippled  in  foreign  countries  after 
having  laid  them  waste.  Then,  when  this  expenditure 
brought  invasion  upon  us,  our  polite  friencl,  the  enemy, 
was  unwilling  to  take  leave  of  us  without  carrying  away 
some  money,  and  this  money  had  to  be  borrowed. 

J. :   And  what  benefit  do  I  derive  from  this  now? 

L. :  The  satisfaction  of  saying — 

Que   je    suis   fier    d'etre    Frangais 
Quand  je  regarde  la  colonne  ! 

J. :  And  the  humiliation  of  leaving  to  my  heirs  an 
estate  burdened   with   a  perpetual   rent-charge.     Still,    it 

is  necessary  to  pay  one's  debts,  whatever  foolish  use  is 

178 


THE  TAXGATHERER  179 

made  of  the  proceeds.    So  much  for  the  disposal  of  one 
tun;  but  what  about  the  five  others? 

L. :  One  goes  to  support  the  public  service,  the  civil 
list,  the  judges  who  protect  your  property  when  your 
neighbour  wishes  wrongfully  to  appropriate  it,  the 
policemen  who  protect  you  from  robbers  when  you  are 
asleep,  the  roadmen  who  maintain  the  highways,  the 
cure  who  baptises  your  children,  the  schoolmaster  who 
educates  them,  and,  lastly,  your  humble  servant,  who 
cannot  be  expected  to  work  exactly  for  nothing. 

J.:  All  right;  service  for  service  is  quite  fair,  and  I 
have  nothing  to  say  against  it.  I  should  like  quite  as 
well,  no  doubt,  to  deal  directly  with  the  rector  and  the 
schoolmaster  on  my  own  account;  but  I  don't  stand  upon 
that.  This  accounts  for  the  second  tun — but  we  have 
still  other  four  to  account  for. 

L. :  Would  you  consider  two  tuns  as  more  than 
your  fair  contribution  to  the  expense  of  the  army  and 
navy? 

J. :  Alas !  that  is  a  small  affair,  compared  with  what 
the  two  services  have  cost  me  already,  for  they  have 
deprived  me  of  two  sons  whom  I  dearly  loved. 

L. :   It  is  necessary  to  maintain  the  balance  of  power. 

J. :  And  would  that  balance  not  be  quite  as  well  main- 
tained if  the  European  powers  were  to  reduce  their  forces 
by  one-half  or  three-fourths?  We  should  preserve  our 
children  and  our  money.  All  that  is  requisite  is  to  come 
to  a  common  understanding. 

L. :   Yes;  but  they  don't  understand  one  another. 

J. :  It  is  that  which  fills  me  with  astonishment,  for 
they  suffer  from  it  in  common. 

L. :   It  is  partly  your  own  doing,  Jacques  Bonhomme. 

J. :  You  are  joking,  Mr.  Taxgatherer.  Have  I  any 
voice  in  the  matter? 

L. :  Whom  did  you  vote  for  as  deputy  ? 


i8o  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

J.  :  A  brave  general  officer,  who  will  soon  be  a  marshal, 
if  God  spares  him. 

L. :   And  upon  what  does  the  gallant  general  live? 

J. :    Upon  my  six  tuns,   I  should  think. 

L.  :  What  would  happen  to  him  if  he  voted  a  re- 
duction of  the  army,  and  of  your  contingent? 

J.  :  Instead  of  being  made  a  marshal  he  would  be 
forced  to  retire. 

L. :  Do  you  understand  now  that  you  have  your- 
self  

J.  :  Let  us  pass  on  to  the  fifth  tun,  if  you  please. 

L. :   That  goes  to  Algeria. 

J.:  To  Algeria!  And  yet  they  tell  us  that  all  the 
Mussulmans  are  wine-haters,  barbarians  as  they  are  !  I 
have  often  inquired  whether  it  is  their  ignorance  of  claret 
which  has  made  them  infidels,  or  their  infidelity  which 
has  made  them  ignorant  of  claret.  And  then,  what  service 
do  they  render  me  in  return  for  this  nectar  which  has 
cost  me  so  much  toil  ? 

L.  :  None  at  all;  nor  is  the  wine  destined  for  the 
Mussulman,  but  for  good  Christians  who  spend  their  lives 
in  Barbary. 

J.:   And  what  service  do  they  render  me? 

L. :  They  make  razzias,  and  suffer  from  them  in 
their  turn;  they  kill  and  are  killed;  they  are  seized  with 
dysentery  and  sent  to  the  hospital;  they  make  harbours 
and  roads,  build  villages,  and  people  them  with  Maltese, 
Italians,  Spaniards,  and  Swiss,  who  live  upon  your  wine; 
for  another  supply  of  which,  I  can  tell  you,  I  shall  soon 
come  back  to  you. 

J. :  Good  gracious  !  that  is  too  much.  I  give  you  a 
flat  refusal.  A  vinedresser  who  could  be  guilty  of  such 
folly  would  be  sent  to  Bedlam.  To  make  roads  through 
Mount  Atlas — good  Heavens  !  when  I  can  scarcely  leave 
my  house  for  want  of  roads  !     To  form  harbours  in  Bar- 


THE  TAXGATHERER  i8i 

bary,  when  the  Garonne  is  silted  up  !  To  carry  off  my 
children  whom  I  love,  and  send  them  to  torment  the 
Kabyles  !  To  make  me  pay  for  houses,  seed,  and  horses, 
to  be  handed  over  to  Greeks  and  Maltese,  when  we  have 
so  many  poor  people  to  provide  for  at  home ! 

L. :  The  poor!  Just  so;  they  rid  the  country  of  the 
redundant  population. 

J. :  And  we  are  to  send  after  them  to  Algeria  the 
capital  on  which'  they  could  live  at  home ! 

L.  :  But  then  you  are  laying  the  foundations  of  a 
great  empire,  you  carry  civilisation  into  Africa,  thus 
crowning  your  country  with  immortal  glory. 

J. :   You  are  a  poet,  Mr.  Taxgatherer.     I  am  a  plain  ^ 
vinedresser,  and  I  refuse  your  demand. 

L. :  But  think  that  in  the  course  of  some  thousands 
of  years  your  present  advances  will  be  recouped  and 
repaid  a  hundredfold.  The  men  who  direct  the  enter- 
prise assure  us  that  it  will  be  so. 

J.  :  In  the  meantime,  in  order  to  defray  the  expense, 
they  asked  me  first  of  all  for  one  cask  of  wine,  then  for 
two,  then  for  three,  and  now  I  am  taxed  by  the  tun  !  I 
persist  in  my  refusal. 

L. :  Your  refusal  comes  too  late.  Your  representative 
has  stipulated  for  the  whole  quantity  I  demand. 

J. :  Too  true.  Cursed  weakness  on  my  part !  Surely, 
in  making  him  my  representative  I  was  guilty  of  a  piece 
of  folly;  for  what  is  there  in  common  between  a  general 
officer  and  a  poor  vinedresser? 

L. :  Oh,  yes;  there  is  something  in  common — namely, 
your  wine  which  he  has  voted  to  himself  in  your 
name. 

J.  :  You  may  well  laugh  at  me,  Mr.  Taxgatherer,  for 
I  richly  deserve  it.  But  be  reasonable.  Leave  me  at 
least  the  sixth  tun.  You  have  already  secured  payment 
of   the   interest  of   the   debt,    and   provided   for  the  civil 


i82  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

list  and  the  public  service,  besides  perpetuating  the  war 
in  Africa.     What  more  would  you  have? 

L. :  It  is  needless  to  higgle  with  me.  Communicate 
your  views  to  the  General,  your  representative.  For  the 
present  he  has  voted  away  your  vintage. 

J. :  Confound  the  fellow  !  But  tell  me  what  you  intend 
to  make  of  this  last  cask,  the  best  of  my  whole  stock? 
Stay,  taste  this  wine.  How  ripe,  mellow  and  full-bodied 
it  is! 

L. :  Excellent !  delicious !  It  will  suit  Mr.  D.,  the 
cloth  manufacturer,   admirably. 

J.:  Mr.  D.,  the  cloth  manufacturer?  What  do  you 
mean  ? 

L. :  That  he  will  reap  the  benefit. 

J.:  How?  What?  I'll  be  hanged  if  I  understand 
you  I 

L. :  Don't  you  know  that  Mr.  D.  has  set  on  foot  a 
grand  undertaking  which  will  prove  most  useful  to  the 
country,  but  which,  when  everything  is  taken  into  account, 
causes  each  year  a  considerable  pecuniary  loss  ? 

J. :   I  am  sorry  to  hear  it,  but  what  can  I  do? 

L. :  The  Chamber  has  come  to  the  conclusion  that, 
if  this  state  of  things  continues,  Mr.  D.  will  be  under 
the  necessity  of  either  working  more  profitably,  or  of 
shutting  up  his  manufacturing  establishment  altogether. 

J. :  But  what  have  these  losing  speculations  of 
Mr.  D.  to  do  with  my  wine? 

L. :  The  Chamber  has  found  out  that,  by  making 
over  to  Mr.  D.  some  wine  taken  from  your  cellar,  some 
corn  taken  from  your  neighbour's  granaries,  some  money 
taken  from  the  workmen's  wages,  the  losses  of  D.  may  be 
converted  into  profits. 

J. :  The  recipe  is  as  infallible  as  it  is  ingenious.  But, 
zounds  !  it  is  awfully  iniquitous.  Mr.  D.,  forsooth,  is  to 
make  up  his  losses  by  laying  hold  of  my  wine  I 


THE   TAXGATHERER  183 

L.  :  Not  exactly  of  the  wine,  but  of  its  price.  This 
is  what  we  denominate  premiums  of  encouragement,  or 
bounties.  Don't  you  see  the  great  service  you  are  ren- 
dering to  the  country? 

J. :  You  mean  to  Mr.  D.  ? 

L. :  To  the  country.  Mr.  D.  assures  us  that  his  manu- 
facture prospers  in  consequence  of  this  arrangement,  and 
in  this  way  he  says  the  country  is  enriched.  He  said  so 
the  other  day  in  the  Chamber,  of  which  he  is  a  member. 

J.:  This  is  a  wretched  quibble!  A  speculator  enters 
into  a  losing  trade,  and  dissipates  his  capital ;  and  if 
he  extorts  from  me  and  from  my  neighbours  wine  and 
corn  of  sufficient  value,  not  only  to  repair  his  losses,  but 
afford  him  a  profit,  this  is  represented  as  a  gain  to  the 
country  at  large. 

L. :  Your  representative  having  come  to  this  conclusion 
you  have  nothing  more  to  do  but  to  deliver  up  to  me 
the  six  tuns  of  wine  which  I  demand,  and  sell  the 
remaining  fourteen  tuns  to  the  best  advantage. 

J. :   That  is  my  business. 

L. :  It  will  be  unfortunate  if  you  do  not  realise  a 
large  price. 

J.  :    I  will  think  of  it. 

L.  :  For  this  price  will  enable  you  to  meet  many 
more  things. 

J. :    I  am  aware  of  that,   Sir. 

L. :  In  the  first  place,  if  you  purchase  iron  to  renew 
your  ploughs  and  your  spades,  the  law  decrees  that  you 
must  pay  the  ironmaster  double  what  the  commodity  is 
worth. 

J.  :   Yes,  this  is  very  consolatory. 

L. :  Then  you  have  need  of  coal,  of  butchers'  meat, 
of  cloth,  of  oil,  of  wood,  of  sugar,  and  for  each  of  these 
commodities  the  law  makes  you  pay  double. 

J.:   It  is  horrible,  frightful,  abominable  I 


i84  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

L. :  Why  should  you  indulge  in  complaints  ?  You 
yourself,  through  your  representative 

J. :  Say  nothing  more  of  my  representative.  I  am 
singularly  represented,  it  is  true.  But  they  will  not  impose 
upon  me  a  second  time.  I  shall  be  represented  by  a 
good  and  honest  peasant. 

L. :   Bah  !  you  will  re-elect  the  gallant  General. 

J. :  Shall  I  re-elect  him  to  divide  my  wine  among 
Africans  and  manufacturers? 

L. :   I  tell  you,  you  will  re-elect  him. 

J. :  This  is  too  much.  I  am  free  to  re-elect  him  or 
not,  as  I  choose. 

L. :   But  you  will  so  choose. 

J. :  Let  him  come  forward  again,  and  he  will  find 
whom  he  has  to  deal  with. 

L.  :  Well,  we  shall  see.  Farewell.  I  carry  away  your 
six  tuns  of  wine,  to  be  distributed  as  your  friend,  the 
General,  has  determined.^ 

1  See  vol.  i.,  Collected  Works,  Leifer  to  M.  Larnac;  and  vol.  v., 
Parliamentary  Incompatibiiities. — French   Editor. 


CHAPTER    IX 

protection;  or,  the  three  city  aldermen 

Demonstration  in  Four  Tableaux 
Scene   I. — House   of  Master  Peter. — Window   looking 
out  on  a  fine  park. — Three  gentlemen  seated  near 
a  good  fire 

Peter  :  Bravo  !  Nothing  like  a  good  fire  after  a  good 
dinner.  It  does  feel  so  comfortable.  But  alas  !  how  many 
honest  folks,  like  the  Rio  d'Yvetot, 

"  Soufflent,    faute    de    bois, 
Dans  leurs  doigts." 

Miserable  creatures  !  A  charitable  thought  has  just  come 
into  my  head.  You  see  these  fine  trees;  I  am  about  to 
fell  them,  and  distribute  the  timber  among  the  poor. 

Paul  and  John  :   What !  gratis  ? 

Peter  :  Not  exactly.  My  good  works  would  soon 
have  an  end  were  I  to  dissipate  my  fortune.  I  estimate 
my  park  as  worth  ;^i,ooo.  By  cutting  down  the  trees 
I  shall  pocket  much  more. 

Paul  :  Wrong.  Your  wood  as  it  stands  is  worth 
more  than  that  of  the  neighbouring  forests,  for  it  renders 
services  which  they  cannot  render.  When  cut  down  it 
will  be  only  good  for  firewood,  like  any  other,  and  will 
not  bring  a  penny  more  the  load. 

Peter  :  Oh  !  oh  !  Mr.  Theorist,  you  forget  that  I  am 
a  practical  man.  My  reputation  as  a  speculator  is  suffi- 
ciently well  established,  I  believe,  to  prevent  me  from 
being  taken  for  a  noodle.  Do  you  imagine  I  am  going 
to  amuse  myself  by  selling  my  timber  at  the  price  of 
float-wood  ? 

185 


i86  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

Paul  :  It  would  seem  so. 

Peter  :  Simpleton  !  And  what  if  I  can  hinder  float- 
wood  from  being  brought  into  Paris? 

Paul  :  That  alters  the  case.  But  how  can  you 
manage  it? 

Peter  :  Here  is  the  whole  secret.  You  know  that 
float-wood  on  entering  the  city  pays  5d.  the  load.  To- 
morrow I  induce  the  commune  to  raise  the  duty  to  ^4, 
;^8,  £12 — in  short,  sufficiently  high  to  prevent  the  entry 
of  a  single  log.  Now,  do  you  follow  me?  If  the  good 
people  are  not  to  die  of  cold  they  have  no  alternative 
but  to  come  to  my  woodyard.  They  will  bid  against 
each  other  for  my  wood,  and  I  will  sell  it  for  a  high 
price;  and  this  act  of  charity,  successfully  carried  out, 
will  put  me  in  a  situation  to  do  other  acts  of  charity. 

Paul  :  A  fine  invention,  truly !  It  suggests  to  me 
another  of  the  same  kind. 

John  :  And  what  is  that  ?  Is  philanthropy  to  be 
again  brought  into  play? 

Paul  :  How  do  you  like  this  Normandy  butter  ? 
John  :   Excellent. 

Paul  :  Hitherto  I  have  thought  it  passable.  But  do 
you  not  think  it  is  a  little  strong?  I  could  make  better 
butter  in  Paris.  I  shall  have  four  or  five  hundred  cows, 
and  distribute  milk,  butter  and  cheese  among  the  poor. 
Peter  and  John  :  What  I  in  charity  ? 
Paul  :  Bah  I  let  us  put  charity  always  in  the  fore- 
ground. It  is  so  fine  a  figure  that  its  very  mask  is  a 
good  passport,  I  shall  give  my  butter  to  the  people, 
and  they  will  give  me  their  money.  Is  that  what  is 
called  selling? 

John:  No;  not  according  to  the  Bourgeois  Gentil- 
homme.  But  call  it  what  you  please,  you  will  ruin 
yourself.  How  can  Paris  ever  compete  with  Normandy 
in  dairy  produce? 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  187 

Paul  :   I  shall  be  able  to  save  the  cost  of  carriage. 

John  :  Be  it  so.  Still,  while  paying  that  cost,  the 
Normans  can  beat  the  Parisians. 

Paul  :  To  give  a  man  something  at  a  lower  price — 
is  that  what  you  call  beating  him? 

John  :  It  is  the  usual  phrase ;  and  you  will  always 
find  yourself  beaten. 

Paul:  Yes,  as  Don  Quixote  was  beaten.  The  blows 
will  fall  upon  Sancho.  John,  my  friend,  you  forget 
the  town  dues. 

John  :  The  town  dues !  What  have  they  to  do  with 
your  butter? 

Paul  :  To-morrow  I  shall  demand  protection,  and 
induce  the  commune  to  prohibit  butter  being  brought 
into  Paris  from  Normandy  and  Brittany.  The  people 
must  then  either  dispense  with  it,  or  purchase  mine,  and 
at  my  own  price,  too. 

John  :  Upon  my  honour,  gentlemen,  your  philan- 
thropy has  quite  made  a  convert  of  me. 

"  On  apprend  a  hurler,  dit  I'autre,  avec  les  loups." 

My  mind  is  made  up.  It  shall  not  be  said  that  I  am  an 
unworthy  alderman.  Peter,  this  sparkling  fire  has  inflamed 
your  soul.  Paul,  this  butter  has  lubricated  the  springs 
of  your  intelligence.  I,  too,  feel  stimulated  by  this  piece 
of  salted  pork;  and  to-morrow  I  shall  vote,  and  cause 
to  be  voted,  the  exclusion  of  swine,  dead  or  alive.  That 
done,  I  shall  construct  superb  sheds  in  the  heart  of  Paris. 
"  Pour  I'animal  immonde  aux  Hebreux  d^fendu." 

I  shall  become  a  pig-driver  and  pork-butcher.  Let  us 
see  how  the  good  people  of  Paris  can  avoid  coming  to 
provide  themselves  at  my  shop. 

Peter  :  Softly,  my  good  friends ;  if  you  enhance  the 
price  of  butter  and  salt  meat  to  such  an  extent  you  cut 
^own  beforehand  the  profit  I  expect  from  my  wood. 


i88  FALLACIES    OF   PROTECTION 

Paul  :  And  my  speculation  will  be  no  longer  so 
wondrously  profitable  if  I  am  overcharged  for  my  fire- 
wood and  bacon. 

John  :  And  I,  what  shall  I  gain  by  overcharging  you 
for  my  sausages  if  you  overcharge  me  for  my  faggots 
and  bread  and  butter? 

Peter  :  Very  well,  don't  let  us  quarrel.  Let  us  rather 
put  our  heads  together  and  make  reciprocal  concessions. 
Moreover,  it  is  not  good  to  consult  one's  self-interest 
exclusively — we  must  exercise  humanity,  and  see  that  the 
people  do  not  want  fuel. 

Paul  :  Very  right ;  and  it  is  proper  that  the  people 
should  have  butter  to  their  bread. 

John  :   Undoubtedly ;  and  a  bit  of  bacon  for  the  pot. 

All  :  Three  cheers  for  charity ;  three  cheers  for  philan- 
thropy ;  and  to-morrow  we  take  the  town  dues  by  assault. 

Peter  :  Ah  !  I  forgot.  One  word  more;  it  is  essential. 
My  good  friends,  in  this  age  of  selfishness  the  world  is 
distrustful,  and  the  purest  intentions  are  often  misunder- 
stood. Paul,  you  take  the  part  of  pleading  for  the  wood ; 
John  will  do  the  same  for  the  butter;  and  I  shall  devote 
myself  to  the  home-bred  pig.  It  is  necessary  to  prevent 
malignant  suspicions. 

Paul  and  John  (leaving) :  Upon  my  word,  that  is  a 
clever  fellow. 

Scene  II. — Council  Chamber 

Paul  :  My  dear  colleagues,  every  day  there  are 
brought  to  Paris  great  masses  of  firewood,  which  drain 
away  large  sums  of  money.  At  this  rate,  we  shall  all  be 
ruined  in  three  years,  and  what  will  become  of  the  poorer 
classes  ?  (Cheers.)  We  must  prohibit  foreign  timber.  I 
don't  speak  for  myself,  for  all  the  wood  I  possess  would 
not  make  a  tooth-pick.  In  what  I  mean  to  say,  then,  I 
am  entirely  free  from  any  personal  interest  or  bias.     (Hear, 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  189 

hear,)  But  here  is  my  friend  Peter,  who  possesses  a  park, 
and  he  will  guarantee  an  adequate  supply  of  fuel  to  our 
fellow-citizens,  who  will  no  longer  be  dependent  on  the 
charcoal-burners  of  the  Yonne.  Have  you  ever  turned 
your  attention  to  the  risk  which  we  run  of  dying  of 
cold  if  the  proprietors  of  forests  abroad  should  take  it 
into  their  heads  to  send  no  more  firewood  to  Paris? 
Let  us  put  a  prohibition,  then,  on  the  bringing  in  of 
wood.  By  this  means  we  shall  put  a  stop  to  the  drain- 
ing away  of  our  money,  create  an  independent  interest 
charged  with  supplying  the  city  with  firewood,  and 
open  up  to  workmen  a  new  source  of  employment  and 
remuneration.     (Cheers.) 

John  :  I  support  the  proposal  of  my  honourable  friend, 
the  preceding  speaker,  which  is  at  once  so  philanthropic, 
and,  as  he  himself  has  explained,  so  entirely  disinterested. 
It  is  indeed  high  time  that  we  should  put  an  end  to  this 
insolent  laisses  passer,  which  has  brought  immoderate 
competition  into  our  markets,  and  to  such  an  extent  that 
there  is  no  province  which  possesses  any  special  facility 
for  providing  us  with  a  product,  be  it  what  it  may,  which 
does  not  immediately  inundate  us,  undersell  us,  and  bring 
ruin  on  the  Parisian  workman.  It  is  the  duty  of  Govern- 
ment to  equalise  the  conditions  of  production  by  duties 
wisely  adapted  to  each  case,  so  as  not  to  allow  to  enter 
from  without  anything  which  is  not  dearer  than  in  Paris, 
and  so  relieve  us  from  an  unequal  struggle.  How,  for 
example,  can  we  possibly  produce  milk  and  butter  in 
Paris,  with  Brittany  and  Normandy  at  our  door?  Re- 
member, gentlemen,  that  the  agriculturists  of  Brittany 
have  cheaper  land,  a  more  abundant  supply  of  hay,  and 
manual  labour  on  more  advantageous  terms.  Does  not 
common  sense  tell  us  that  we  must  equalise  the  conditions 
by  a  protective  town  tariff?  I  demand  that  the  duty  on 
milk  and  butter  should  be  raised  by  1,000  per  cent.,  and 


iQo  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

still  higher  if  necessary.  The  workman's  breakfast  will 
cost  a  little  more,  but  see  to  what  extent  his  wages  will 
be  raised  I  We  shall  see  rising  around  us  cow-houses, 
dairies,  and  barrel  churns,  and  the  foundations  laid  of 
new  sources  of  industry.  Not  that  I  have  any  interest  in 
this  proposition.  I  am  not  a  cowfeeder,  nor  have  I  any 
wish  to  be  so.  The  sole  motive  which  actuates  me  is  a 
wish  to  be  useful  to  the  working  classes.     (Applause,) 

Peter  :  I  am  delighted  to  see  in  this  assembly  states- 
men so  pure,  so  enlightened,  and  so  devoted  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  people.  (Cheers.)  I  admire  their  dis- 
interestedness, and  I  cannot  do  better  than  imitate  the 
noble  example  which  has  been  set  me.  I  give  their 
motions  my  support,  and  I  shall  only  add  another,  for 
prohibiting  the  entry  into  Paris  of  the  pigs  of  Poitou.  I 
have  no  desire,  I  assure  you,  to  become  a  pig-driver  or  a 
pork-butcher.  In  that  case  I  should  have  made  it  a  matter 
of  conscience  to  be  silent.  But  is  it  not  shameful,  gentle- 
men, that  we  should  be  the  tributaries  of  the  peasants  of 
Poitou,  who  have  the  audacity  to  come  into  our  own 
market  and  take  possession  of  a  branch  of  industry  which 
we  ourselves  have  the  means  of  carrying  on?  and  who, 
after  having  inundated  us  with  their  hams  and  sausages, 
take  perhaps  nothing  from  us  in  return  ?  At  all  events, 
who  will  tell  us  that  the  balance  of  trade  is  not  in  their 
favour,  and  that  we  are  not  obliged  to  pay  them  a 
tribute  in  hard  cash  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  if  the  industry 
of  Poitou  were  transplanted  to  Paris  it  would  open  up 
a  steady  demand  for  Parisian  labour?  And  then,  gentle- 
men, is  it  not  very  possible,  as  M.  Lestiboudois  has  so 
well  remarked,'  that  we  may  be  buying  the  salt  pork  of 
Poitou,  not  with  our  incomes,  but  with  our  capital  ? 
Where  will  that  land  us?  Let  us  not  suffer,  then,  that 
rivals  who  are  at  once  avaricious,  greedy,  and  perfidious, 
*  See  ch.  vi.,  first  series. — Frbnch  Editor. 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  191 

should  come  here  to  undersell  us,  and  put  it  out  of  our 
power  to  provide  ourselves  with  the  same  commodities. 
Gentlemen,  Paris  has  reposed  in  you  her  confidence;  it 
is  for  you  to  justify  that  confidence.  The  people  are 
without  employment;  it  is  for  you  to  create  employment 
for  them ;  and  if  salt  pork  shall  cost  them  a  somewhat 
higher  price,  we  have,  at  least,  the  consciousness  of 
having  sacrificed  our  own  interests  to  those  of  the  masses, 
as  every  good  magistrate  ought  to  do.  (Loud  and  long- 
continued  cheers.) 

A  Voice  :  I  have  heard  much  talk  of  the  poor ;  but 
under  pretext  of  affording  them  employment  you  begin 
by  depriving  them  of  what  is  worth  more  than  employ- 
ment itself — namely,  butter,  firewood,  and  meat. 

Peter,  Paul  and  John  :  Vote,  vote  I  Down  with 
Utopian  dreamers,  theorists,  generalisers  !  Vote,  vote ! 
(The  three  motions  are  carried.) 

Scene  HI. — Twenty  years  afterwards 

Son:  Father,  make  up  your  mind;  we  must  leave 
Paris.  Nobody  can  any  longer  live  here — no  work,  and 
everything  dear. 

Father  :  You  don't  know,  my  son,  how  much  it 
costs  one  to  leave  the  place  where  he  was  born. 

Son  :  The  worst  thing  of  all  is  to  perish  from  want. 

Father  :  Go  you,  then,  and  search  for  a  more  hospit- 
able country.  For  myself,  I  will  not  leave  the  place 
where  are  the  graves  of  your  mother,  and  of  your 
brothers  and  sisters.  I  long  to  obtain  with  them  that 
repose  which  has  been  denied  me  in  this  city  of  deso- 
lation. 

Son  :  Courage,  father;  we  shall  find  employment  some- 
where else — in  Poitou,  or  Normandy,  or  Brittany.  It  is 
said  that  all  the  manufactures  of  Paris  are  being  removed 
by  degrees  to  these  distant  provinces. 


192  FALLACIES    OF   PROTECTION 

Father  :  And  naturally  so.  Not  being  able  to  sell 
firewood  and  provisions,  the  people  of  these  provinces 
have  ceased  to  produce  them  beyond  what  their  own 
wants  call  for.  The  time  and  capital  at  their  disposal 
are  devoted  to  making  for  themselves  those  articles  with 
which  we  were  accustomed  formerly  to  furnish  them. 

Son  :  Just  as  at  Paris  they  have  given  up  making  pretty 
dresses  and  furniture,  and  betaken  themselves  to  the  plant- 
ing of  trees  and  the  rearing  of  pigs  and  cows.  Although 
still  young,  I  have  lived  to  see  vast  warehouses,  sumptuous 
parts  of  the  city,  and  quays  once  teeming  with  life  and 
animation  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine  turned  into  meadows 
and  copses. 

Father  :  While  towns  are  spread  over  the  provinces, 
Paris  is  turned  into  country.  What  a  deplorable  revolu- 
tion !  And  this  terrible  calamity  has  been  brought  upon 
us  by  three  magistrates,  backed  by  public  ignorance. 

Son  :  Pray  tell  me  the  history  of  this  change. 

Father  :  It  is  short  and  simple.  Under  pretext  of 
planting  in  Paris  three  new  branches  of  industry,  and 
by  this  means  giving  employment  to  the  working  classes, 
these  men  got  the  commune  to  prohibit  the  entry  into 
Paris  of  firewood,  butter,  and  meat.  They  claimed  for 
themselves  the  right  of  providing  for  their  fellow-citizens. 
These  commodities  rose  at  first  to  exorbitant  prices.  No 
one  earned  enough  to  procure  them,,  and  the  limited  number 
of  those  who  could  procure  them  spent  all  their  income  on 
them,  and  had  no  longer  the  means  of  buying  anything 
else.  A  check  was  thus  given  at  once  to  all  other  in- 
dustries, and  all  the  more  quickly  that  the  provinces  no 
longer  afforded  a  market.  Poverty,  death,  and  emigration 
then  began  to  depopulate  Paris. 

Son  :  And  when  is  this  to  stop  ?  ,.^ 

Father  :  When  Paris  has  become  a  forest  and  a 
prairie. 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  193 

Son  :  The  three  magistrates  must  have  made  a  large 
fortune  ? 

Father  :  At  first  they  reaHsed  enormous  profits,  but 
at  length  they  fell  into  the  common  poverty. 

Son  :  How  did  that  happen  ? 

Father:  Look  at  that  ruin.  That  was  a  magnificent 
mansion-house  surrounded  with  a  beautiful  park.  If  Paris 
had  continued  to  progress,  Master  Peter  would  have 
realised  more  rent  than  his  entire  capital  now  amounts  to. 

Son  :  How  can  that  be,  seeing  he  has  got  rid  of  com- 
petition ? 

Father  :  Competition  in  selling  has  disappeared,  but 
competition  in  buying  is  also  disappearing,  and  will  con- 
tinue every  day  to  disappear  more  and  more  until  Paris 
becomes  a  bare  field,  and  until  the  copses  of  Master  Peter 
have  no  more  value  than  the  copses  of  an  equal  extent  of 
land  in  the  Forest  of  Bondy.  It  is  thus  that  monopoly, 
like  every  other  system  of  injustice,  carries  in  itself  its 
own  punishment. 

Son  :  That  appears  to  me  not  very  clear,  but  the  de- 
cadence of  Paris  is  an  incontestable  fact.  Is  there  no 
means,  then,  of  counteracting  this  iniquitous  measure  that 
Peter  and  his  colleagues  got  adopted  twenty  years  ago  ? 

Father  :  I  am  going  to  tell  you  a  secret.  I  remain 
in  Paris  on  purpose.  I  shall  call  in  the  people  to  my 
assistance.  It  rests  with  them  to  replace  the  town  dues 
on  their  ancient  basis,  and  get  quit  of  that  fatal  principle 
which  was  engrafted  on  them,  and  which  still  vegetates 
there  like  a  parasitical  fungus. 

Son  :  You  must  succeed  in  this  at  once. 

Father  :  On  the  contrary,  the  work  will  be  difficult 
and  laborious.  Peter,  Paul,  and  John  understand  one 
another  marvellously.  They  will  do  anything  rather  than 
allow  firewood,  butter,  and  butchers'  meat  to  enter  Paris. 
They  have  on  their  side  the  people,  who  see  clearly  the 


194  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

employment  which  these  three  protected  branches  of  in- 
dustry afford,  who  know  well  to  how  many  cow-feeders 
and  wood-merchants  they  give  employment,  but  who  have 
by  no  means  the  same  exact  idea  of  the  labour  which  would 
be  developed  in  the  grand  air  of  liberty. 

Son  :  If  that  is  all,  you  will  soon  enlighten  them. 

Father  :  At  your  age,  my  son,  one  doubts  of  nothing. 
If  I  write,  the  people  will  not  read;  for,  to  support  their 
miserable  existence,  they  have  no  vacant  time  at  their 
disposal.  If  I  speak,  the  aldermen  will  shut  my  mouth. 
The  people,  therefore,  will  long  remain  under  their  fatal 
mistake.  Political  parties,  whose  hopes  are  founded  on 
popular  passions,  will  set  themselves,  not  to  dissipate  their 
prejudices,  but  to  make  use  of  them.  I  shall  have  to 
combat  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  powerful  men  of 
the  day,  the  people,  and  the  political  parties.  In  truth, 
I  see  a  frightful  storm  ready  to  burst  over  the  head  of  the 
bold  man  who  shall  venture  to  protest  against  an  iniquity 
so  deeply  rooted  in  this  country. 

Son  :  You  will  have  truth  and  justice  on  your  side. 

Father  :  And  they  will  have  force  and  calumny  on 
theirs.  Were  I  but  young  again ;  but  age  and  suffering 
have  exhausted  my  strength  ! 

Son  :  Very  well,  father ;  what  strength  remains  to  you, 
devote  it  to  the  service  of  the  country.  Begin  this  work 
of  enfranchisement,  and  leave  to  me  the  task  of  finishing  it. 

Scene  IV. — The  Agitation 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  Parisians,  let  us  insist  upon  a 
reform  of  the  town  duties;  let  us  demand  that  they  be 
instantly  put  back  to  what  they  were.  Let  every  citizen 
be  free  to  buy  his  firewood,  butter,  and  butchers'  meat 
where  he  sees  fit. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Liberty  ! 

Peter  :  Parisians,  don't  allow  yourselves  to  be  seduced 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  195 

by  that  word,  liberty.  What  good  can  result  from  liberty 
to  purchase  if  you  want  the  means,  and  how  can  you  have 
the  means  if  you  are  out  of  employment  ?  Can  Paris  pro- 
duce firewood  as  cheaply  as  the  Forest  of  Bondy  ?  meat  as 
cheaply  as  Poitou  ?  butter  as  cheaply  as  Normandy  ?  If 
you  open  your  gates  freely  to  these  rival  products,  what 
will  become  of  the  cow-feeders,  woodcutters,  and  pork- 
butchers?     They  cannot  dispense  with  protection. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Protection  ! 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  Protection  !  but  who  protects  you 
workmen  ?  Do  you  not  compete  with  one  another  ?  Let 
the  wood-merchants,  then,  be  subject  to  competition  in 
their  turn.  They  ought  not  to  have  right  by  law  to  raise 
the  price  of  firewood,  unless  the  rate  of  wages  is  also  raised 
by  law.     Are  you  no  longer  in  love  with  equality? 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Equality ! 

Peter  :  Don't  listen  to  these  agitators.  We  have,  it  is 
true,  raised  the  price  of  firewood,  butchers'  meat,  and 
butter;  but  we  have  done  so  for  the  express  purpose  of 
being  enabled  to  give  good  wages  to  the  workmen.  We 
are  actuated  by  motives  of  charity. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Charity  ! 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  Cause  the  r^te  of  wages  to  be 
raised  by  the  town  dues,  if  you  can,  or  cease  to  use  them 
to  raise  the  prices  of  commodities.  We  Parisians  ask  for 
no  charity — we  demand  justice. 

The  People  :   Hurrah  for  Justice ! 

Peter  :  It  is  precisely  the  high  price  of  commodities 
which  will  lead,  indirectly,  to  a  rise  of  wages. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Dearness  ! 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  If  butter  is  dear,  it  is  not  because 
you  pay  high  wages  to  the  workmen,  it  is  not  even  be- 
cause you  make  exorbitant  profits;  it  is  solely  because 
Paris  is  ill-adapted  for  that  branch  of  industry;  it  is 
because  you  have  wished  to  make  in  the  town  what  should 


196  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

be  made  in  the  country,  and  in  the  country  what  should 
be  made  in  the  town.  The  people  have  not  more  employ- 
ment— only  they  have  employment  of  a  different  kind. 
They  have  no  higher  wages;  while  they  can  no  longer 
buy  commodities  as  cheaply  as  formerly. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Cheapness ! 

Peter  :  This  man  seduces  you  with  fine  words.  Let 
us  place  the  question  before  you  in  all  its  simplicity.  Is 
it,  or  is  it  not,  true,  that  if  we  admit  firewood,  meat, 
and  butter  freely  or  at  a  lower  duty,  our  markets  will  be 
inundated?  Believe  me  there  is  no  other  means  of  pre- 
serving ourselves  from  this  new  species  of  invasion  but 
to  keep  the  door  shut,  and  to  maintain  the  prices  of  com- 
modities by  rendering  them  artificially  scarce. 

A  VERY  FEW  Voices  in  the  Crowd  :  Hurrah  for 
Scarcity  ! 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  Let  us  bring  the  question  to  the 
simple  test  of  truth.  You  cannot  divide  among  the  people 
of  Paris  commodities  which  are  not  in  Paris.  If  there  be 
less  meat,  less  firewood,  less  butter,  the  share  falling  to 
each  will  be  smaller.  Now  there  must  be  less  if  we  pro- 
hibit what  should  be  allowed  to  enter  the  city.  Parisians, 
abundance  for  each  of  you  can  be  secured  only  by  general 
abundance. 

The  People  :  Hurrah  for  Abundance  ! 

Peter  :  It  is  in  vain  that  this  man  tries  to  persuade  you 
that  it  is  your  interest  to  be  subjected  to  unbridled  com- 
petition. 

The  People  :  Down  with  Competition  ! 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  It  is  in  vain  that  this  man  tries 
to  make  you  fall  in  love  with  restriction. 

The  People  :   Down  with  Restriction  ! 

Peter  :  I  declare,  for  my  own  part,  if  you  deprive  the 
poor  cow-feeders  and  pig-drivers  of  their  daily  bread,  if 
you  sacrifice  them  to  theories,  I  can  no  longer  be  answer- 


THE   THREE    ALDERMEN  197 

able  for  public  order.  Workmen,  distrust  that  man.  He 
is  tlie  agent  of  perfidious  Normandy,  and  is  prompted  by 
the  foreigner.  He  is  a  traitor,  and  ought  to  be  hanged  ! 
(The  people  preserve  silence,) 

Jacques  Bonhomme  :  Parisians,  what  I  have  told  you 
to-day,  I  told  you  twenty  years  ago,  when  Peter  set  him- 
self to  work  the  town  dues  for  his  own  profit  and  to  your 
detriment.  I  am  not,  then,  an  agent  of  Normandy.  Hang 
me,  if  you  will,  but  that  will  not  make  oppression  anything 
else  than  oppression.  Friends,  it  is  neither  Jacques  nor 
Peter  that  you  must  kill,  but  liberty  if  you  fear  it,  or 
restriction  if  it  does  you  harm. 

The  People  :  Hang  nobody,  and  set  everybody  free. 


CHAPTER    X 

SOMETHING  ELSE 

"What  is  restriction?"  ' 

"It  is  partial  prohibition." 

"  What  is  prohibition  ?  " 

"Absolute  restriction." 

"So  that  what  holds  true  of  the  one,  holds  true  of  the 
other?" 

"Yes;  the  difference  is  only  one  of  degree.  There  is 
between  them  the  same  relation  as  there  is  between  a  circle 
and  the  arc  of  a  circle." 

"Then,  if  prohibition  is  bad,  restriction  cannot  be 
good?" 

"No  more  than  the  arc  can  be  correct  if  the  circle  is 
irregular." 

"What  is  the  name  which  is  common  to  restriction 
and  prohibition  ?  " 

"Protection." 

"What  is  the  definitive  effect  of  protection?" 

"To  exact  from  men  a  greater  amount  of  labour  for  the 
same  result." 

"  Why  are  men  attached  to  the  system  of  protection  ?  " 

"  Because  as  liberty  enables  us  to  obtain  the  same  result 
with  less  labour,  this  apparent  diminution  of  employment 
frightens  them." 

"  Why  do  you  say  apparent  ?  " 

"Because  all  labour  saved  can  be  applied  to  something 
else." 

"To  what?" 

198 


SOMETHING    ELSE  199 

"That  I  cannot  specify,  nor  is  there  any  need  to 
specify  it." 

"Why?" 

"Because  if  the  amount  of  satisfactions  which  the 
country  at  present  enjoys  could  be  obtained  with  one- 
tenth  less  labour,  no  one  can  enumerate  the  new  enjoy- 
ments which  men  would  desire  to  obtain  from  the  labour 
left  disposable.  One  man  would  desire  to  be  better 
clothed,  another  better  fed,  another  better  educated, 
another  better  amused." 

"Explain  to  me  the  mechanism  and  the  effects  of  pro- 
tection." 

"That  is  not  an  easy  matter.  Before  entering  on  coa- 
sideration  of  the  more  complicated  cases,  we  must  study  it 
in  a  very  simple  one." 

"Take  as  simple  a  case  as  you  choose." 

"You  remember  how  Robinson  Crusoe  managed  to 
make  a  plank  when  he  had  no  saw." 

"Yes ;  he  felled  a  tree,  and  then,  cutting  the  trunk  right 
and  left  with  his  hatchet,  he  reduced  it  to  the  thickness  of 
a  board." 

"And  that  cost  him  much  labour?" 

"Fifteen  whole  days'  work." 

"And  what  did  he  live  on  during  that  time?" 

"He  had  provisions." 

"  What  happened  to  the  hatchet  ?  " 

"It  was  blunted  by  the  work." 

"Yes;  but  you  perhaps  do  not  know  this:  that  at  the 
moment  when  Robinson  was  beginning  the  work  he  per- 
ceived a  plank  thrown  by  the  tide  upon  the  seashore." 

"Happy  accident!  He  of  course  ran  to  appropriate 
it?" 

"That  was  his  first  impulse;  but  he  stopped  short,  and 
began  to  reason  thus  with  himself  : 

"'If  I  get  this  plank,  it  will  cost  me  only  the  trouble 


200  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

of  carrying  it,  and  the  time  needed  to  descend  and  remount 
the  cliff. 

"*  But  if  I  form  a  plank  with  my  hatchet,  first  of  all, 
it  will  procure  me  fifteen  days'  employment;  then  my 
hatchet  will  get  blunt,  which  will  furnish  me  with  the 
additional  employment  of  sharpening  it ;  then  I  shall  con- 
sume my  stock  of  provisions,  which  will  be  a  third  source 
of  employment  in  replacing  them.  Now,  labour  is  wealth. 
It  is  clear  that  I  should  ruin  myself  by  getting  the  plank. 
I  must  protect  my  personal  labour;  and,  now  that  I  think 
of  it,  I  can  even  increase  that  labour  by  throwing  back  the 
plank  into  the  sea.'  " 

"But  this  reasoning  was  absurd." 

"No  doubt.  It  is  nevertheless  the  reasoning  of  every 
nation  which  protects  itself  by  prohibition.  It  throws 
back  the  plank  which  is  offered  in  exchange  for  a  small 
amount  of  labour  in  order  to  exert  a  greater  amount 
of  labour.  Even  in  the  labour  of  the  Custom-house 
officials  it  discovers  a  gain.  That  gain  is  represented 
by  the  pains  which  Robinson  takes  to  render  back  to 
the  waves  the  gift  which  they  had  offered  him.  Consider 
the  nation  as  a  collective  being,  and  you  will  not  find 
between  its  reasoning  and  that  of  Robinson  an  atom  of 
difference." 

"Did  Robinson  not  see  that  he  could  devote  the  time 
saved  to  something  else?" 

"What  else?" 

"As  long  as  a  man  has  wants  to  satisfy  and  time  at  his 
disposal,  there  is  always  somethi^ig  to  be  done.  I  am  not 
bound  to  specify  the  kind  of  labour  he  would  in  such  a 
case  undertake." 

"  I  see  clearly  what  labour  he  could  have  escaped." 

"And  I  maintain  that  Robinson,  with  incredible  blind- 
ness, confounded  the  labour  with  its  result,  the  end  with 
the  means,  and  I  am  going  to  prove  to  you     .     .     ." 


SOMETHING    ELSE  201 

**  There  is  no  need.  Here  we  have  the  system  of  re- 
striction or  prohibition  in  its  simplest  form.  If  it  appear 
to  you  absurd  when  so  put,  it  is  because  the  two  capacities 
of  producer  and  consumer  are  in  this  case  mixed  up  in 
the  same  individual." 

"Let  us  pass  on,  therefore,  to  a  more  complicated 
example." 

"With  all  my  heart.  Some  time  afterwards,  Robinson 
having  met  with  Friday,  they  united  their  labour  in  a 
common  work.  In  the  morning  they  hunted  for  six  hours, 
and  brought  home  four  baskets  of  game.  In  the  evening 
they  worked  in  the  garden  for  six  hours,  and  obtained 
four  baskets  of  vegetables. 

"One  day  a  canoe  touched  at  the  island.  A  good- 
looking  foreigner  landed,  and  was  admitted  to  the  table  of 
our  two  recluses.  He  tasted  and  commended  very  much 
the  produce  of  the  garden,  and  before  taking  leave  of  his 
entertainers,  spoke  as  follows  : 

" '  Generous  islanders,  I  inhabit  a  country  where  game 
is  much  more  plentiful  than  here,  but  where  horticulture 
is  quite  unknown.  It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  bring 
you  every  evening  four  baskets  of  game,  if  you  will  give 
me  in  exchange  two  baskets  of  vegetables.' 

"At  these  words  Robinson  and  Friday  retired  to  con- 
sult, and  the  debate  that  took  place  is  too  interesting  not 
to  be  reported  in  extenso. 

"Friday:   What  do  you  think  of  it? 

"  Robinson  :  If  we  close  with  the  proposal,  we  are 
ruined. 

"F. :   Are  you  sure  of  that?     Let  us  consider. 

"R. :  The  case  is  clear.  Crushed  by  competition,  our 
hunting  as  a  branch  of  industry  is  annihilated. 

"F.  :  What  matters  it,  if  we  have  the  game? 

"R.:  Theory!  It  will  no  longer  be  the  product  of 
our  labour. 


202  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

"F.  :  I  beg  your  pardon,  sir;  for  in  order  to  have  game 
we  must  part  with  vegetables. 

"R. :  Then,  what  shall  we  gain? 

"F. :  The  four  baskets  of  game  cost  us  six  hours'  work. 
The  foreigner  gives  us  them  in  exchange  for  two  baskets 
of  vegetables,  which  cost  us  only  three  hours'  work.  This 
places  three  hours  at  our  disposal. 

"R. :  Say,  rather,  which  are  subtracted  from  our  exer- 
tions. There  is  our  loss.  Labour  is  wealth,  and  if  we 
lose  a  fourth  part  of  our  time  we  shall  be  less  rich  by 
a  fourth. 

"F. :  You  are  greatly  mistaken,  my  good  friend.  We 
shall  have  as  much  game,  and  the  same  quantity  of  vege- 
tables, and  three  hours  at  our  disposal  into  the  bargain. 
This  is  progress,  or  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  world. 

"R. :  You  lose  yourself  in  generalities  !  What  should 
we  make  of  these  three  hours? 

"F. :  We  would  do  something  else. 

"R.:  Ah!  I  understand  you.  You  cannot  come  to 
particulars.  Something  else,  something  else — that  is 
easily  said. 

"F. :  We  can  fish,  we  can  ornament  our  cottage,  we 
can  read  the  Bible. 

"R. :  Utopia!  Is  there  any  certainty  that  we  should 
do  either  the  one  or  the  other? 

"  F.  :  Very  well,  if  we  have  no  wants  to  satisfy  we  can 
rest.     Is  repose  nothing? 

"R. :  But  while  we  repose  we  may  die  of  hunger. 

"F.  :  My  dear  friend,  you  have  got  into  a  vicious 
circle.  I  speak  of  a  repose  which  will  subtract  nothing 
from  our  supply  of  game  and  vegetables.  You  always 
forget  that  by  means  of  our  foreign  trade  nine  hours' 
labour  will  give  us  the  same  quantity  of  provisions  that 
we  obtain  at  present  with  twelve. 

"R.  :  It  is  very  evident,  Friday,  that  you  have  not  been 


SOMETHING    ELSE  203 

educated  in  Europe,  and  that  you  have  never  read  the 
Moniteur  Industriel.  If  you  had,  it  would  have  taught 
you  this  :  that  all  time  saved  is  sheer  loss.  The  important 
thing  is  not  to  eat  or  consume,  but  to  work.  All  that  we 
consume,  if  it  is  not  the  direct  produce  of  our  labour,  goes 
for  nothing.  Do  you  want  to  know  whether  you  are  rich  ? 
Never  consider  the  enjoyments  you  obtain,  but  the  labour 
you  undergo.  This  is  what  the  Moniteur  Industriel  would 
teach  you.  For  myself,  who  have  no  pretensions  to  be 
a  theorist,  the  only  thing  I  look  at  is  the  loss  of  our 
hunting. 

"P.:  What  a  strange  turning  upside  down  of  ideas! 
But     .     .     . 

"R.:  No  buts.  Moreover,  there  are  political  reasons 
for  rejecting  the  interested  offers  of  the  perfidious  foreigner. 

"  F. :   Political  reasons  ! 

"R. :  Yes,  he  only  makes  us  these  offers  because  they 
are  advantageous  to  him. 

"F. :  So  much  the  better,  since  they  are  for  our  advan- 
tage likewise. 

**R. :  Then  by  this  traffic  we  should  place  ourselves  in 
a  situation  of  dependence  upon  him. 

"F. :  And  he  would  place  himself  in  dependence  on 
us.  We  should  have  need  of  his  game,  and  he  of  our 
vegetables,  and  we  should  live  on  terms  of  friendship. 

"R. :  System  !     Do  you  want  me  to  shut  your  mouth  ? 

"F. :  We  shall  see  about  that.  I  have  as  yet  heard 
no  good  reason. 

"R.:  Suppose  the  foreigner  learns  to  cultivate  a 
garden,  and  that  his  island  should  prove  more  fertile 
than  ours.     Do  you  see  the  consequence  ? 

"F. :  Yes;  our  relations  with  the  foreigner  would 
cease.  He  would  take  from  us  no  more  vegetables,  since 
he  could  have  them  at  home  with  less  labour.  He  would 
bring  us  no  more  game,  since  we  should  have  nothing  to 


204  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

give  him  in  exchange,  and  we  should  then  be  in  precisely 
the  situation  that  you  wish  us  in  now. 

"R.:  Improvident  savage!  You  don't  see  that  after 
having  annihilated  our  hunting  by  inundating  us  with 
game,  he  would  annihilate  our  gardening  by  inundating 
us  with  vegetables. 

"F. :  But  this  would  only  last  so  long  as  we  were  in 
a  situation  to  give  him  something  else;  that  is  to  say, 
so  long  as  we  found  something  else  which  we  could 
produce  with  economy  of  labour  for  ourselves. 

"R.:  Som^ething  else,  sow^ething  else!  You  always 
come  back  to  that.  You  are  at  sea,  my  good  friend 
Friday;  there  is  nothing  practical  in  your  views. 

"The  debate  was  long  prolonged,  and,  as  often  hap- 
pens, each  remained  wedded  to  his  own  opinion.  But 
Robinson  possessing  a  great  influence  over  Friday,  his 
opinion  prevailed,  and  when  the  foreigner  arrived  to 
demand  a  reply,   Robinson  said  to  him  ;  — 

*'*  Stranger,  in  order  to  induce  us  to  accept  your  pro- 
posal, we  must  be  assured  of  two  things : 

"  *  The  first  is,  that  your  island  is  no  better  stocked  with 
game  than  ours,  for  we  want  to  fight  only  with  equal 
weapons. 

"'The  second  is  that  you  will  lose  by  the  bargain. 
For,  as  in  every  exchange  there  is  necessarily  a  gaining 
and  a  losing  party,  we  should  be  dupes,  if  you  were  not 
the  loser.     What  have  you  got  to  say  ?  ' 

"'Nothing,*  replied  the  foreigner;  and,  bursting  out 
laughing,  he  regained  his  canoe. 

"The  story  would  not  be  amiss  if  Robinson  were  not 
made  to  argue  so  very  absurdly." 

"He  does  not  argue  more  absurdly  than  the  committee 
of  the  Rue  Hauteville." 

"Oh!  the  case  is  very  different.  Sometimes  you  sup- 
pose one  man,  and  sometimes  (which  comes  to  the  same 


SOMETHING    ELSE  205 

thing)  two  men  living  in  company.  That  does  not  tally 
with  the  actual  state  of  things.  The  division  of  labour 
and  the  intervention  of  merchants  and  money  change  the 
state  of  the  question  very  much." 

"That  may  complicate  transactions,  but  does  not 
change  their  nature." 

"  What !  you  want  to  compare  modern  commerce  with 
a  system  of  barter." 

"Trade  is  nothing  but  a  multiplicity  of  barters.  Barter 
is  in  its  own  nature  identical  with  commerce,  just  as  labour 
on  a  small  scale  is  identical  with  labour  on  a  great  scale, 
or  as  the  law  of  gravitation  which  moves  an  atom  is  identi- 
cal with  that  same  law  of  gravitation  which  moves  a 
world." 

"So,  according  to  you,  these  arguments,  which  are  so 
untenable  in  the  mouth  of  Robinson,  are  equally  untenable 
when  urged  by  our  protectionists." 

"Yes;  only  the  error  is  better  concealed  under  a  com- 
plication of  circumstances." 

"Then,  pray,  let  us  have  an  example  taken  from  the 
present  order  of  things." 

"With  pleasure.  In  France,  owing  to  the  exigencies 
of  climate  and  habits,  cloth  is  a  useful  thing.  Is  the 
essential  thing  to  make  it,  or  to  get  it?  " 

"A  very  sensible  question,  truly  !  In  order  to  have  it, 
you  must  make  it." 

"Not  necessarily.  To  have  it,  someone  must  make  it, 
that  is  certain ;  but  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  the  same 
person  or  the  same  country  which  consumes  it  should  also 
produce  it.  You  have  not  made  that  stuff  which  clothes 
you  so  well.  France  does  not  produce  the  coffee  on  which 
our  citizens  breakfast." 

"But  I  buy  my  cloth,  and  France  her  coffee." 

"  Exactly  so ;  and  with  what  ?  " 

"With  money." 


2o6  FALLACIES   OF    PROTECTION 

"But  neither  you  nor  France  produce  the  material  of 
money." 

"We  buy  it." 

"With  what?" 

"With  our  products,  which  are  sent  to  Peru." 

"It  is  then,  in  fact,  your  labour  which  you  exchange 
for  cloth,  and  French  labour  which  is  exchanged  for 
coffee." 

"Undoubtedly." 

"It  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  therefore,  to  manu- 
facture what  you  consume  ?  " 

"No;  if  we  manufacture  something  else  which  we  give 
in  exchange." 

"In  other  words,  France  has  two  means  of  procuring  a 
given  quantity  of  cloth.  The  first  is  to  make  it;  the 
second  is  to  make  something  else,  and  to  exchange  this 
something  else  with  the  foreigner  for  cloth.  Of  these  two 
means,  which  is  the  best  ?  " 

"I  don't  very  well  know." 

"Is  it  not  that  which,  for  a  determinate  amount  of 
labour,  obtains  the  greater  quantity  of  cloth?** 

"It  seems  so." 

"And  which  is  best  for  a  nation,  to  have  the  choice 
between  these  two  means,  or  that  the  law  should  pro- 
hibit one  of  them,  on  the  chance  of  stumbling  on  the 
better  of  the  two?" 

"  It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  better  for  the  nation  to  have 
the  choice,  inasmuch  as  in  such  matters  it  invariably 
chooses  right." 

"The  law,  which  prohibits  the  importation  of  foreign 
cloth,  decides,  then,  that  if  France  wishes  to  have  cloth, 
she  must  make  it,  and  she  is  prohibited  from  making  the 
something  else  with  which  she  could  purchase  foreign 
cloth." 

"True." 


SOMETHING    ELSE  207 

"  And  as  the  law  obliges  us  to  make  the  cloth,  and  for- 
bids our  making  the  something  else,  precisely  because 
that  something  else  would  exact  less  labour  (but  for  which 
reason  the  law  would  not  interfere  with  it)  the  law  virtually 
decrees  that  for  a  determinate  amount  of  labour,  France 
shall  only  have  one  yard  of  cloth,  when  for  the  same 
amount  of  labour  she  might  have  two  yards,  by  applying 
that  labour  to  something  else." 

"But  the  question  recurs,  '  What  else?*" 

"And  my  question  recurs,  'What  does  it  signify?' 
Having  the  choice,  she  will  only  make  the  something  else 
to  such  an  extent  as  there  may  be  a  demand  for  it." 

"That  is  possible;  but  I  cannot  divest  myself  of  the 
idea  that  the  foreigner  will  send  us  his  cloth,  and  not 
take  from  us  the  something  else,  in  which  case  we  would 
be  entrapped.  At  all  events,  this  is  the  objection  even 
from  your  own  point  of  view.  You  allow  that  France 
could  make  this  something  else  to  exchange  for  cloth, 
with  a  less  expenditure  of  labour  than  if  she  had  made  the 
cloth  itself?" 

"Undoubtedly." 

"There  would,  then,  be  a  certain  amount  of  her  labour 
rendered  inert  ?  " 

"Yes;  but  without  her  being  less  well  provided  with 
clothes,  a  little  circumstance  which  makes  all  the  dijfTer- 
ence.  Robinson  lost  sight  of  this,  and  our  protectionists 
either  do  not  see  it,^  or  pretend  not  to  see  it.  The  ship- 
wrecked plank  rendered  fifteen  days  of  Robinson's  labour 
inert,  in  as  far  ^s  that  labour  was  applied  to  making  a 
plank,  but  it  did  not  deprive  him  of  it.  Discriminate, 
then,  between  these  two  kinds  of  diminished  labour — the 
diminution  which  has  for  effect  privation,  and  that  which 
has  for  its  cause  satisfaction.  These  two  things  are  very 
different,  and  if  you  mix  them  up,  you  reason  as  Robinson 
did.     In  the  most  complicated,  as  in  the  most  simple  cases. 


2o8  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

the  fallacy  consists  in  this :  Judging  of  the  utility  of 
labour  by  its  duration  and  intensity ,  and  not  by  its  results ; 
which  gives  rise  to  this  economic  policy  :  To  reduce  the 
results  of  labour  for  the  purpose  of  augmenting  its  dura- 
tion and  intensity."^ 

*  See  ch.  ii,  and  iii.,  first  series;  and  Harmonies  Economiques,  ch.  vi. — 
French  Editor. 


I 


CHAPTER    XI 

THE  LITTLE  ARSENAL  OF  THE  FREE-TRADER 

If  anyone  tells  you  that  there  are  no  absolute  principles, 
no  inflexible  rules;  that  prohibition  may  be  bad  and  yet 
that  restriction  may  be  good, 

Reply:  "Restriction  prohibits  all  that  it  hinders  from 
being  imported." 

If  anyone  says  that  agriculture  is  the  nursing-mother 
of  the  country, 

Reply:  "What  nourishes  the  country  is  not  exactly 
agriculture,  but  corn.*^ 

If  anyone  tells  you  that  the  basis  of  the  food  of  the 
people  is  agriculture, 

Reply:  "The  basis  of  the  people's  food  is  corn.  This 
is  the  reason  why  a  law  which  gives  us,  by  agricultural 
labour,  two  quarters  of  corn,  when  we  could  have  obtained 
four  quarters  without  such  labour,  and  by  means  of  labour 
applied  to  manufactures,  is  a  law  not  for  feeding,  but  for 
starving  the  people." 

If  anyone  remarks  that  restriction  upon  the  importation 
of  foreign  corn  gives  rise  to  a  more  extensive  culture,  and 
consequently  to  increased  home  production. 

Reply:  "It  induces  men  to  sow  grain  on  comparatively 
barren  and  ungrateful  soils.  To  milk  a  cow  and  go  on 
milking  her,  puts  a  little  more  into  the  pail,  for  it  is 
difficult  to  say  when  you  will  come  to  the  last  drop.  But 
that  drop  costs  dear." 

If  anyone  tells  you  that  when  bread  is  dear,  the 
agriculturist,  having  become  rich,  enriches  the  manu- 
facturer, 

o  209 


210  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

Reply:  "Bread  is  dear  when  it  is  scarce,  and  then  men 
are  poor,  or,  if  you  like  it  better,  they  become  rich 
starvelings." 

If  you  are  further  told  that  when  bread  gets  dearer, 
wages  rise, 

Reply  by  pointing  out  that,  in  April,  1847,  five-sixths 
of  our  workmen  were  receiving  charity. 

If  you  are  told  that  the  wages  of  labour  should  rise  with 
the  increased  price  of  provisions. 

Reply:  "This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  in  a  ship  with- 
out provisions,  everybody  will  have  as  much  biscuit  as  if 
the  vessel  were  fully  victualled." 

If  you  are  told  that  it  is  necessary  to  secure  a  good  price 
to  the  man  who  sells  corn. 

Reply:  "That  in  that  case  it  is  also  necessary  to  secure 
good  wages  to  the  man  who  buys  it." 

If  it  is  said  that  the  proprietors,  who  make  the  laws, 
have  raised  the  price  of  bread,  without  taking  thought 
about  wages,  because  they  know  that  when  bread  rises 
wages  naturally  rise. 

Reply:  "Upon  the  same  principle,  when  the  workmen 
come  to  make  the  laws,  don't  blame  them  if  they  fix  a 
high  rate  of  wages  without  busying  themselves  about  pro- 
tecting corn,  because  they  know  that  when  wages  rise, 
provisions  naturally  rise  also." 

If  you  are  asked  what,  then,  is  to  be  done? 

Reply:  "Be  just  to  everybody." 

If  you  are  told  that  it  is  essential  that  every  great 
country  should  produce  iron. 

Reply:  "What  is  essential  is,  that  every  great  country 
should  have  iron," 

If  you  are  told  that  it  is  indispensable  that  every  great 
country  should  produce  cloth. 

Reply:  "The  indispensable  thing  is,  that  the  citizens 
of  every  great  country  should  have  cloth," 


arsenal:  of  the  free-trader      211 

If  it  be  said  that  labour  is  wealth, 

Reply:  "This  is  not  true." 

And,  by  way  of  development,  add:  "Phlebotomy  is 
not  health,  and  the  proof  of  it  is  that  bleeding  is  resorted 
to  for  the  purpose  of  restoring  health." 

If  it  is  said:  "To  force  men  to  cultivate  rocks, 
and  extract  an  ounce  of  iron  from  a  hundredweight  of 
ore,  is  to  increase  their  labour  and  consequently  their 
wealth." 

Reply:  "To  force  men  to  dig  wells  by  prohibiting  them 
from  taking  water  from  the  brook,  is  to  increase  their 
useless  labour,  but  not  their  wealth." 

If  you  are  told  that  the  sun  gives  you  his  heat  and  light 
without  remuneration, 

Reply:  "So  much  the  better  for  me,  for  it  costs  me 
nothing  to  see  clearly." 

And  if  you  are  answered  that  industry  in  general  loses 
what  would  have  been  paid  for  artificial  light, 

Rejoin:  "No;  for  having  paid  nothing  to  the  sun,  what 
he  saves  me  enables  me  to  buy  clothes,  furniture,  and 
candles." 

In  the  same  way,  if  you  are  told  that  these  rascally 
English  possess  capital  which  is  dormant, 

Reply:  "So  much  the  better  for  us;  they  will  not  make 
us  pay  interest  for  it." 

If  it  is  said:  "These  perfidious  English  find  coal  and 
iron  in  the  same  pit," 

Reply:  "So  much  the  better  for  us;  they  will  charge 
us  nothing  for  bringing  them  together." 

If  you  are  told  that  the  Swiss  have  rich  pasturages, 
which  cost  little  : 

Reply:  "The  advantage  is  ours,  for  they  will  demand 
a  smaller  amount  of  our  labour  in  return  for  giving  an  im- 
petus  to   our   agriculture,    and   supplying   us   with   pro- 


212  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

If  they  tell  you  that  the  lands  of  the  Crimea  have  no 
value,  and  pay  no  taxes, 

Reply:  "The  profit  is  ours,  who  buy  corn  free  from 
such  charges." 

If  they  tell  you  that  the  serfs  of  Poland  work  without 
wages, 

Reply:  "The  misfortune  is  theirs  and  the  profit  is  ours, 
since  their  labour  does  not  enter  into  the  price  of  the  corn 
which  their  masters  sell  us." 

Finally,  if  they  tell  you  that  other  nations  have  many 
advantages  over  us. 

Reply:  *'By  means  of  exchange,  they  are  forced  to 
allow  us  to  participate  in  these  advantages." 

If  they  tell  you  that  under  free-trade  we  are  about  to  be 
inundated  with  bread,  beef  a  la  mode^  coal,  and  winter 
clothing. 

Reply:  "In  that  case  we  shall  be  neither  hungry  nor 
thirsty." 

If  they  ask  how  we  are  to  pay  for  these  things? 

Reply:  "Don't  let  that  disquiet  you.  If  we  are  inun- 
dated, it  is  a  sign  we  have  the  means  of  paying  for  the 
inundation ;  and  if  we  have  not  the  means  of  paying,  we 
shall  not  be  inundated." 

If  anyone  says :  I  should  approve  of  free  trade,  if  the 
foreigner,  in  sending  us  his  products,  would  take  our 
products  in  exchange;  but  he  carries  off  our  money. 

Reply:  "Neither  money  nor  coffee  grows  in  the  fields 
of  Beauce,  nor  are  they  turned  out  by  the  workshops  of 
Elbeuf.  So  far  as  we  are  concerned,  to  pay  the  foreigner 
with  money  is  the  same  thing  as  paying  him  with  coffee." 

If  they  bid  you  eat  butcher's  meat, 

Reply:  "Allow  it  to  be  imported." 

If  they  say  to  you,  in  the  words  of  La  Presse,  "When 
one  has  not  the  means  to  buy  bread,  he  is  forced  to  buy 
beef," 


ARSENAL  OF  THE  FREE-TRADER        213  -  - 

Reply :  "This  is  advice  quite  as  judicious  as  that  given 
by   M.   Vautour   to  his  tenant: 

"  '  Quand  on  n'a  pas  de  quoi  payer  son  terme, 
II  faut  avoir  une  maison  a  soi.'  " 

If,  again,  they  say  to  you,  in  the  words  of  La  Presse, 
"The  government  should  teach  the  people  how  and  why 
they  must  eat  beef," 

Reply:  "The  government  has  only  to  allow  the  beef 
to  be  imported,  and  the  most  civilised  people  in  the  world 
will  know  how  to  use  it  without  being  taught  by  a  master." 

If  they  tell  you  that  the  government  should  know 
everything,  and  foresee  everything,  in  order  to  direct  the 
people,  and  that  the  people  have  simply  to  allow  them- 
selves to  be  led, 

Reply  by  asking:  "Is  there  a  state  apart  from  the 
people  ?  is  there  a  human  foresight  apart  from  humanity  ? 
Archimedes  might  repeat  every  day  of  his  life,  *  With  a 
fulcrum  and  lever  I  can  move  the  world ;  '  but  he  never 
did  move  it,  for  want  of  a  fulcrum  and  lever.  The  lever 
of  the  state  is  the  nation ;  and  nothing  can  be  more  foolish 
than  to  found  so  many  hopes  upon  the  state,  which  is 
simply  to  take  for  granted  the  existence  of  collective 
science  and  foresight,  after  having  set  out  with  the  assump- 
tion of  individual  imbecility  and  improvidence." 

If  anyone  says,  "I  ask  no  favour,  but  only  such  a 
duty  on  bread  and  meat  as  shall  compensate  the  heavy 
taxes  to  which  I  am  subjected ;  only  a  small  duty  equal  to 
what  the  taxes  add  to  the  cost  price  of  my  corn," 

Reply:  "A  thousand  pardons;  but  I  also  pay  taxes. 
If,  then,  the  protection  which  you  vote  in  your  own  favour 
has  the  effect  of  burdening  me  as  a  purchaser  of  corn  with 
exactly  your  share  of  the  taxes,  your  modest  demand 
amounts  to  nothing  less  than  establishing  this  arrangement 
as  formulated  by  you  :    '  Seeing  that  the  public  charges 


214  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

are  heavy,  I,  as  a  seller  of  corn,  am  to  pay  nothing,  and 
you  my  neighbour,  as  a  buyer  of  corn,  are  to  pay  double, 
viz.,  your  own  share  and  mine  into  the  bargain.'  Mr. 
Corn-merchant,  my  good  friend,  you  may  have  force  at 
your  command,  but  assuredly  you  have  not  reason  on 
your  side." 

If  anyone  says  to  you,  "It  is,  however,  exceedingly 
hard  upon  me,  who  pay  taxes,  to  have  to  compete  in  my 
own  market  with  the  foreigner,  who  pays  none. 

Reply: 

"ist.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  your  market,  but  our 
market.  I  who  live  upon  corn  and  pay  for  it,  should 
surely  be  taken  into  account. 

**2nd.  Few  foreigners  at  the  present  day  are  exempt 
from  taxes. 

"3rd,  If  the  taxes  you  vote  yield  you  in  roads,  canals, 
security,  etc.,  more  than  they  cost  you,  you  are  not  justi- 
fied in  repelling,  at  my  expense,  the  competition  of 
foreigners,  who,  if  they  do  not  pay  taxes,  have  not  the 
advantages  you  enjoy  in  roads,  canals,  and  security.  You 
might  as  well  say,  *  I  demand  a  compensating  duty  because 
I  have  finer  clothes,  stronger  horses,  and  better  ploughs 
than  the  hard-working  peasant  of  Russia.* 

"4th,  If  the  tax  does  not  repay  you  for  what  it  costs, 
don't  vote  it. 

"5th,  In  short,  after  having  voted  the  tax,  do  you  wish 
to  get  free  from  it  ?  Try  to  frame  a  law  which  will  throw 
it  on  the  foreigner.  But  your  tariff  makes  your  share  of 
it  fall  upon  me,  who  have  already  my  own  burden  to  bear." 

If  anyone  says,  "For  the  Russians  free  trade  is  neces- 
sary to  enable  them  to  exchange  their  products  with  advan- 
tage "  (Opinion  de  M,  Thiers  dans  les  Bureaux,   April, 

1847), 

Reply:  "Liberty  is  necessary  everywhere,  and  for  the 


ARSENAL  OF  THE  FREE-TRADER        215 

If  you  are  told,  "  Each  country  has  its  wants,  and  we 
must  be  guided  by  that  in  what  we  do  "  (M.  Thiers), 

Reply:  "Each  country  acts  thus  of  its  own  accord,  if 
you  don't  throw  obstacles  in  the  way." 

If  they  tell  you,  **  We  have  no  sheet-iron,  and  we  must 
allow  it  to  be  imported"   (M.  Thiers), 

Reply:  "Many  thanks." 

If  you  are  told,  "We  have  no  freights  for  our  merchant 
shipping.  The  want  of  return  cargoes  prevents  our  ship- 
ping from  competing  with  foreigners"  (M.  Thiers), 

Reply:  "When  a  country  wishes  to  have  everything 
produced  at  home,  there  can  be  no  freights  either  for 
exports  or  imports.  It  is  just  as  absurd  to  desire  to  have 
a  mercantile  marine  under  a  system  of  prohibition,  as  it 
would  be  to  have  carts  when  there  is  nothing  to  carry." 

If  you  are  told  that,  assuming  protection  to  be  unjust, 
everything  has  been  arranged  on  that  footing ;  capital  has 
been  embarked ;  rights  have  been  acquired ;  and  the  system 
cannot  be  changed  without  suffering  to  individuals  and 
classes, 

Reply :  "All  injustice  is  profitable  to  somebody  (except, 
perhaps,  restriction,  which  in  the  long  run  benefits  no 
one).  To  argue  from  the  derangement  which  the  cessa- 
tion of  injustice  may  occasion  to  the  man  who  profits  by  it, 
is  as  much  as  to  say  that  a  system  of  injustice,  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  it  has  had  a  temporary  existence, 
ought  to  exist  for  ever." 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE    RIGHT    HAND    AND    THE    LEFT 

Report  Addressed  to  the  King 
{Written  in  1847) 

Sire, — When  we  observe  these  free  trade  advocates 
boldly  disseminating  their  doctrines,  and  maintaining  that 
the  right  of  buying  and  selling  is  implied  in  the  right 
of  property  (as  has  been  urged  by  M.  Billault  in  the  true 
style  of  a  special  pleader),  we  may  be  permitted  to  feel 
serious  alarm  as  to  the  fate  of  our  national  labour;  for 
what  would  Frenchmen  make  of  their  heads  and  their 
hands  were  they  free  ? 

The  administration  which  you  have  honoured  with  your 
confidence  has  turned  its  attention  to  this  grave  state  of 
things,  and  has  sought  in  its  wisdom  to  discover  a  species 
of  protection  which  may  be  substituted  for  that  which 
appears  to  be  getting  out  of  repute.     They  propose  a  law 

TO   PROHIBIT   YOUR    FAITHFUL    SUBJECTS    FROM    USING   THEIR 
RIGHT  HANDS. 

Sire,  we  beseech  you  not  to  do  us  the  injustice  of  sup- 
posing that  we  have  adopted  lightly  and  without  due 
deliberation  a  measure  which  at  first  sight  may  appear 
somewhat  whimsical.  A  profound  study  of  the  system  of 
protection  has  taught  us  this  syllogism,  upon  which  the 
whole  doctrine  reposes  : 

The  more  men  work,  the  richer  they  become; 

The  more  difficulties  there  are  to  be  overcome,  the  more 
work; 

Ergo,  the  more  difficulties  there  are  to  be  overcome, 
the  richer  they  become. 

216 


RIGHT    HAND    AND    LEFT  217 

In  fact,  what  is  protection,  if  it  is  not  an  ingenious 
application  of  this  reasoning — reasoning  so  close  and  con- 
clusive as  to  balk  the  subtlety  of  M.  Billault  himself? 

Let  us  personify  the  country,  and  regard  it  as  a  col- 
lective being  with  thirty  millions  of  mouths,  and,  as  a 
natural  consequence,  with  sixty  millions  of  hands.  Here 
is  a  man  who  makes  a  French  clock,  which  he  can  ex- 
change in  Belgium  for  ten  hundredweights  of  iron.  But 
we  tell  him  to  make  the  iron  himself.  He  replies,  "I 
cannot,  it  would  occupy  too  much  of  my  time ;  I  should 
produce  only  five  hundredweights  of  iron  during  the  time 
I  am  occupied  in  making  a  clock."  Utopian  dreamer,  we 
reply,  that  is  the  very  reason  why  we  forbid  you  to  make 
the  clock,  and  order  you  to  make  the  iron.  Don't  you  see 
we  are  providing  employment  for  you  ? 

Sire,  it  cannot  have  escaped  your  sagacity  that  this  is 
exactly  the  same  thing  in  effect  as  if  we  were  to  say  to 
the  country,  "  Work  with  your  left  hand,  and  not  with 
the  right." 

To  create  obstacles  in  order  to  furnish  labour  with  an 
opportunity  of  developing  itself,  was  the  principle  of  the 
old  system  of  restriction,  and  it  is  the  principle  likewise 
of  the  new  system  which  is  now  being  inaugurated.  Sire, 
to  regulate  industry  in  this  way  is  not  to  innovate, 
but  to  persevere. 

As  regards  the  efficiency  of  the  measure,  it  is  incon- 
testable. It  is  difficult,  much  more  difficult  than  one 
would  suppose,  to  do  with  the  left  hand  what  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  do  with  the  right.  You  will  be  con- 
vinced of  this,  Sire,  if  you  will  condescend  to  make  trial 
of  our  system  in  a  process  which  must  be  familiar  to  you ; 
as,  for  example,  in  shuffling  a  pack  of  cards.  For  this 
reason,  we  flatter  ourselves  that  we  are  opening  to  labour 
an  unlimited  career. 

When  workmen  in  all  departments  of  industry  are  thus 


2i8  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

confined  to  the  use  of  the  left  hand,  we  may  figure  to 
ourselves,  Sire,  the  immense  number  of  people  that  will 
be  wanted  to  supply  the  present  consumption,  assuming 
it  to  continue  invariable,  as  we  always  do  when  we  com- 
pare two  different  systems  of  production  with  one  another. 
So  prodigious  a  demand  for  manual  labour  cannot  fail  to 
induce  a  great  rise  of  wages,  and  pauperism  will  disappear 
as  if  by  enchantment. 

Sire,  your  paternal  heart  will  rejoice  to  think  that  this 
new  law  of  ours  will  extend  its  benefits  to  that  interesting 
part  of  the  community  whose  destinies  engage  all  your 
solicitude.  What  is  the  present  destiny  of  women  in 
France  ?  The  bolder  and  more  hardy  sex  drives  them  in- 
sensibly out  of  every  department  of  industry. 

Formerly,  they  had  the  resource  of  the  lottery  offices. 
These  offices  have  been  shut  up  by  a  pitiless  philanthropy, 
and  on  what  pretext?  "To  save  the  money  of  the  poor." 
Alas  !  the  poor  man  never  obtained  for  a  piece  of  money 
enjoyments  as  sweet  and  innocent  as  those  afforded  by  the 
mysterious  turn  of  fortune.  Deprived  of  all  the  comforts 
of  life,  when  he,  fortnight  after  fortnight,  risked  a  day's 
wages,  how  many  delicious  hours  did  he  afford  his  family  ! 
Hope  was  always  present  at  his  fireside.  The  garret  was 
peopled  with  illusions.  The  wife  hoped  to  rival  her  neigh- 
bours in  her  style  of  living ;  the  son  saw  himself  the  drum- 
major  of  a  regiment ;  and  the  daughter  fancied  herself  led 
to  the  altar  by  her  betrothed. 

"  C'est  quelque  chose  encor  que  de  faire  un  beau  reve  !  " 

The  lottery  was  the  poetry  of  the  poor,  and  we  have 
lost  it. 

The  lottery  gone,  what  means  have  we  of  providing 
for  our  protegees?    Tobacco-shops  and  the  post-office. 

Tobacco,  all  right;  its  use  progresses,  thanks  to  dis- 
tinguished examples. 


RIGHT    HAND    AND    LEFT  219 

But  the  post-office  !  .  .  .  We  shall  say  nothing  of  it, 
it  will  be  the  subject  of  a  special  report. 

Except,  then,  the  sale  of  tobacco,  what  employment 
remains  for  your  female  subjects  ?  Embroidery,  network, 
and  sewing — melancholy  resources,  which  the  barbarous 
science  of  mechanics  goes  on  limiting  more  and  more. 

But  the  moment  your  new  law  comes  into  operation, 
the  moment  right  hands  are  amputated  or  tied  up,  the  face 
of  everything  will  be  changed.  Twenty  times,  thirty 
times,  more  embroiderers,  polishers,  laundresses,  seam- 
stresses, milliners,  shirtmakers,  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
supply  the  wants  of  the  kingdom,  always  assuming,  as 
before,  the  consumption  to  be  the  same. 

This  assumption  may  very  likely  be  disputed  by  some 
cold  theorists,  for  dress  and  everything  else  will  then  be 
dearer.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  iron  which 
we  extract  from  our  own  mines,  compared  with  the  iron  we 
could  obtain  in  exchange  for  our  wines.  This  argument, 
therefore,  does  not  tell  more  against  left-handed  men  than 
against  protection,  for  this  very  dearness  is  the  effect  and 
the  sign  of  an  excess  of  work  and  exertion,  which  is 
precisely  the  basis  upon  which,  in  both  cases,  we  contend 
that  the  prosperity  of  the  working  classes  is  founded. 

Yes,  we  can  make  a  touching  picture  of  the  prosperity 
of  the  millinery  business.  What  movement !  What 
activity  !  What  life  !  Every  dress  will  occupy  a  hundred 
fingers,  instead  of  ten.  No  young  woman  will  be  idle, 
and  we  have  no  need.  Sire,  to  indicate  to  your  perspicacity 
the  moral  consequences  of  this  great  revolution.  Not  only 
will  there  be  more  young  women  employed,  but  each  of 
them  will  earn  more,  for  they  will  be  unable  to  supply  the 
demand ;  and  if  competition  shall  again  show  itself,  it  will 
not  be  among  the  seamstresses  who  make  the  dresses,  but 
among  the  fine  ladies  who  wear  them. 

You   must   see  then,   Sire,    that  our  proposal   is   not 


220  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

only  in  strict  conformity  with  the  economic  traditions  of 
the  government,  but  is  in  itself  essentially  moral  and 
popular. 

To  appreciate  its  effects,  let  us  suppose  the  law  passed 
and  in  operation — let  us  transport  ourselves  in  imagination 
into  the  future — and  assume  the  new  system  to  have  been 
in  operation  for  twenty  years.  Idleness  is  banished  from 
the  country ;  ease  and  concord,  contentment  and  morality^ 
have,  with  employment,  been  introduced  into  every  family 
— no  more  poverty,  no  more  vice.  The  left  hand  being 
very  awkward  at  all  work,  employment  will  be  abundant, 
and  the  remuneration  adequate.  Everything  is  arranged 
on  this  footing,  and  the  workshops  in  consequence  are 
full.  If,  in  such  circumstances.  Sir,  Utopian  dreamers 
were  all  at  once  to  agitate  for  the  right  hand  being  again 
set  free,  would  they  not  throw  the  whole  country  into 
alarm  ?  Would  such  a  pretended  reform  not  overturn  the 
whole  existing  state  of  things?  Then  our  system  must 
be  good,  since  it  could  not  be  put  an  end  to  without 
universal  suffering. 

And  yet  we  confess  we  have  the  melancholy  presenti- 
ment (so  great  is  human  perversity)  that  some  day  there 
will  be  formed  an  association  for  right-hand  freedom. 

We  think  that  already  we  hear  the  free  right-handers^ 
assembled  in  the  Salle  Montesquieu,  holding  this  lan- 
guage : 

"Good  people,  you  think  yourselves  richer  because  the 
use  of  one  of  your  hands  has  been  denied  you ;  you  take 
account  only  of  the  additional  employment  which  that 
brings  you.  But  consider  also  the  high  prices  which 
result  from  it,  and  the  forced  diminution  of  consumption. 
That  measure  has  not  made  capital  more  abundant,  and 
capital  is  the  fund  from  which  wages  are  paid.  The 
streams  which  flow  from  that  great  reservoir  are  directed 
towards  other  channels ;  but  their  volume  is  not  enlarged ; 


RIGHT    HAND    AND    LEFT  221 

and  the  ultimate  effect,  as  far  as  the  nation  at  large  is 
concerned,  is  the  loss  of  all  that  wealth  which  millions  of 
right  hands  could  produce,  compared  with  what  is  now 
produced  by  an  equal  number  of  left  hands.  At  the  risk 
of  some  inevitable  derangements,  then,  let  us  form  an 
association,  and  enforce  our  right  to  work  with  both 
hands." 

Fortunately,  Sire,  an  association  has  been  formed  in 
defence  of  left-hand  labour,  and  the  Left-handers  will  have 
no  difficulty  in  demolishing  all  these  generalities,  supposi- 
tions, abstractions,  reveries,  and  Utopias.  They  have  only 
to  exhume  the  Moniteur  Industriel  for  1846,  and  they  will 
find  ready-made  arguments  against  freedom  of  trade, 
which  refute  so  admirably  all  that  has  been  urged  in  favour 
of  right-hand  liberty  that  it  is  only  necessary  to  substitute 
one  word  for  the  other. 

"The  Parisian  free-trade  league  has  no  doubt  of  se- 
curing the  concurrence  of  the  workmen.  But  the  workmen 
are  no  longer  men  who  can  be  led  by  the  nose.  They 
have  their  eyes  open,  and  they  know  political  economy 
better  than  our  professors.  Free  trade,  they  say,  will 
deprive  us  of  employment,  and  labour  is  our  wealth. 
With  employment,  with  abundant  employment,  the  price 
of  commodities  never  places  them  beyond  our  reach. 
Without  employment,  were  bread  at  a  halfpenny  a  pound, 
the  workman  would  die  of  hunger.  Now  your  doctrines, 
instead  of  increasing  the  present  amount  of  employment, 
would  diminish  it,  that  is  to  say,  would  reduce  us  to 
poverty. 

"  When  there  are  too  many  commodities  in  the  market, 
their  price  falls,  no  doubt.  But  as  wages  always  fall  when 
commodities  are  cheap,  the  result  is  that,  instead  of  being 
in  a  situation  to  purchase  more,  we  are  no  longer  able 
to  buy  anything.  It  is  when  commodities  are  cheap  that 
the  workman  is  worst  off." 


222  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

It  will  not  be  amiss  for  the  Left-handers  to  intermingle 
some  menaces  with  their  theories.  Here  is  a  model  for 
them  : 

"What!  you  desire  to  substitute  right-hand  for  left- 
hand  labour,  and  thus  force  down,  or  perhaps  annihilate, 
wages,  the  sole  resource  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  nation  ! 

"And,  at  a  time  when  a  deficient  harvest  is  imposing 
painful  privations  on  the  workman,  you  wish  to  disquiet 
him  as  to  his  future,  and  render  him  more  accessible  to 
bad  advice,  and  more  ready  to  abandon  that  wise  line  of 
conduct  which  has  hitherto  distinguished  him." 

After  such  conclusive  reasoning  as  this,  we  entertain 
a  confident  hope,  Sire,  that  if  the  battle  is  once  begun, 
the  left  hand  will  come  off  victorious. 

Perhaps  an  association  may  be  formed  for  the  purpose 
of  inquiring  whether  the  right  hand  and  the  left  are  not 
both  wrong,  and  whether  a  third  hand  cannot  be  found 
to  conciliate  everybody. 

After  having  depicted  the  Right-handers  as  seduced  by 
the  apparent  liberality  of  a  principle,  the  soundness  of 
which  experience  has  not  verified,  and  the  Left-handers 
as  maintaining  the  position  they  have  gained,  they  go  on 
to  say : 

"It  is  denied  that  there  is  any  third  position  which  it 
is  possible  to  take  up  in  the  midst  of  the  battle  !  Is  it  not 
evident  that  the  workmen  have  to  defend  themselves  at 
one  and  the  same  time  against  those  who  desire  to  change 
nothing  in  the  present  situation,  because  they  find  their 
account  in  it,  and  against  those  who  dream  of  an  economic 
revolution  of  which  they  have  calculated  neither  the  direc- 
tion nor  the  extent  ?  " 

We  cannot,  however,  conceal  from  your  Majesty  that 
our  project  has  a  vulnerable  side;  for  it  may  be  said 
that  twenty  years  hence  left  hands  will  be  as  skilful  as 
right  hands  are  at  present,  and  that  then  you  could  no 


RIGHT    HAND    AND    LEFT  223 

longer  trust  to  left-handedness  for  an  increase  of  national 
employment. 

To  that  we  reply,  that  according  to  the  most  learned 
physicians  the  left  side  of  the  body  has  a  natural  feeble- 
ness, which  is  quite  reassuring  as  regards  the  labour  of  the 
future. 

Should  your  Majesty  consent  to  pass  the  measure  now 
proposed,  a  great  principle  will  be  established  :  All  wealth 
proceeds  from  the  intensity  of  labour.  It  will  be  easy  for 
us  to  extend  and  vary  the  applications  of  this  principle. 
We  may  decree,  for  example,  that  it  shall  no  longer  be 
permissible  to  work  but  with  the  foot ;  for  this  is  no  more 
impossible  (as  we  have  seen)  than  to  extract  iron  from 
the  mud  of  the  Seine.  You  see,  then.  Sire,  that  the  means 
of  increasing  national  labour  can  never  fail.  And  after  all 
has  been  tried,  we  have  still  the  practically  exhaustless 
resource  of  amputation. 

To  conclude.  Sire,  if  this  report  were  not  intended  for 
publicity,  we  should  take  the  liberty  of  soliciting  your 
attention  to  the  great  influence  which  measures  of  this  kind 
are  calculated  to  confer  on  men  in  power.  But  that  is  a 
matter  which  we  must  reserve  for  a  private  audience. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

DOMINATION    BY    LABOUR 

"  In  the  same  way  that  in  time  of  war  we  attain  the  mastery 
by  superiority  in  arms,  can  we  not,  in  time  of  peace,  arrive 
at  domination  by  superiority  in  labour  ?  " 

This  is  a  question  of  the  highest  interest  at  a  time 
when  no  doubt  seems  to  be  entertained  that  in  the  field  of 
industry,  as  in  the  field  of  battle,  the  stronger  crushes  the 
weaker. 

To  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  we  must  have  discovered 
between  the  labour  which  is  applied  to  commodities  and 
the  violence  exercised  upon  men,  a  melancholy  and  dis- 
couraging analogy;  for  why  should  these  two  kinds  of 
operations  be  identical  in  their  effects,  if  they  are  essen- 
tially different  in  their  own  nature  ? 

And  if  it  be  true  that  in  industry,  as  in  war,  domina- 
tion is  the  necessary  result  of  superiority,  what  have  we  to 
do  with  progress  or  with  social  economy,  seeing  that  we 
inhabit  a  world  where  everything  has  been  so  arranged 
by  Providence  that  one  and  the  same  effect — namely, 
oppression — proceeds  necessarily  from  two  opposite 
principles  ? 

With  reference  to  the  new  policy  towards  which  com- 
mercial freedom  is  drawing  England,  many  persons  make 
this  objection,  which,  I  admit,  preoccupies  the  most  candid 
minds  among  us:  "Is  England  doing  anything  else  than 
pursuing  the  same  end  by  different  means  ?  Does  she  not 
always  aspire  at  universal  supremacy?  Assured  of  her 
superiority  in  capital  and  labour,  does  she  not  invite  free 
competition  in  order  to  stifle  Continental  industry,  and  so 

224 


DOMINATION    BY    LABOUR  225 

put  herself  in  a  situation  to  reign  as  a  sovereign,  and 
conquer  the  privilege  of  feeding  and  clothing  the  popula- 
tions she  has  ruined  ?  " 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  these  alarms  are 
chimerical ;  that  our  alleged  inferiority  is  much  exag- 
gerated; that  our  great  branches  of  industry  not  only 
maintain  their  ground,  but  are  actually  developed  under 
the  action  of  external  competition,  and  that  the  infallible 
effect  of  such  competition  is  to  bring  about  an  increase  of 
general  consumption,  capable  of  absorbing  both  home 
and  foreign  products. 

At  present,  I  desire  to  make  a  direct  answer  to  the 
objection,  leaving  it  all  the  strength  and  the  advantage 
of  the  ground  it  has  chosen.  Keeping  out  of  view  for  the 
present  the  special  case  of  England  and  France,  I  shall 
inquire  in  a  general  way  whether,  when,  by  its  superiority 
in  one  branch  of  industry,  a  nation  comes  to  put  down 
a  similar  branch  of  industry  existing  among  another 
people,  the  former  has  advanced  one  step  towards  domina- 
tion, or  the  latter  towards  dependence;  in  other  words, 
whether  both  nations  do  not  gain  by  the  operation,  and 
whether  it  is  not  the  nation  which  is  outrivalled  that  gains 
the  most. 

If  we  saw  in  a  product  nothing  more  than  an  oppor- 
tunity of  working,  the  alarms  of  the  protectionists  would 
undoubtedly  be  well  founded.  Were  we  to  consider  iron, 
for  example,  only  in  its  relations  with  ironmasters,  we 
might  be  led  to  fear  that  the  competition  of  a  country 
where  it  is  the  gratuitous  gift  of  nature  would  extinguish 
the  furnaces  of  another  country  where  both  ore  and  fuel 
are  scarce. 

But  is  this  a  complete  view  of  the  subject?  Has  iron 
relations  only  with  those  who  make  it?  Has  it  no  rela- 
tions with  those  who  use  it?  Is  its  sole  and  ultimate 
destination  to  be  produced  ?     And  if  it  is  useful,  not  on 


226  FALLACIES    OF   PROTECTION 

account  of  the  labour  to  which  it  gives  employment,  but 
on  account  of  the  qualities  it  possesses,  of  the  numerous 
purposes  to  which  its  durability  and  malleability  adapt  it, 
does  it  not  follow  that  the  foreigner  cannot  reduce  its 
price,  even  so  far  as  to  render  its  production  here  at  home 
unprofitable,  without  doing  us  more  good  in  this  last 
respect  than  harm  in  the  other  ? 

Pray  consider  that  there  are  many  things  which 
foreigners,  by  reason  of  the  natural  advantages  by  which 
they  are  surrounded,  prevent  our  producing  directly,  and 
with  reference  to  which  we  are  placed  in  reality  in  the 
hypothetical  position  we  have  been  examining  with  refer- 
ence to  iron.  We  produce  at  home  neither  tea  nor  coffee, 
gold  nor  silver.  Is  our  industry  as  a  whole  diminished  in 
consequence?  No;  only  in  order  to  create  the  counter- 
value  of  these  imported  commodities,  in  order  to  acquire 
them  by  means  of  exchange,  we  detach  from  our  national 
labour  a  portion  less  great  than  would  be  required  to 
produce  these  things  ourselves.  More  labour  thus  remains 
to  be  devoted  to  the  procuring  of  other  enjoyments.  We 
are  so  much  the  richer  and  so  much  the  stronger.  All  that 
external  competition  can  do,  even  in  cases  where  it  puts 
an  end  absolutely  to  a  particular  branch  of  industry,  is 
to  economise  labour,  and  increase  our  productive  power. 
Is  this,  for  the  foreigner,  the  road  to  domination  ? 

If  we  should  find  in  France  a  gold  mine,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  would  be  for  our  interest  to  work  it.  Nay, 
it  is  certain  that  the  enterprise  should  be  neglected  if  each 
ounce  of  gold  absorbed  more  of  our  labour  than  an  ounce 
of  gold  purchased  abroad  with  cloth.  In  this  case  we 
should  do  better  to  find  our  mines  in  our  workshops.  And 
what  is  true  of  gold  is  true  of  iron. 

The  illusion  proceeds  from  our  failure  to  see  one  thing, 
which  is,  that  foreign  superiority  never  puts  a  stop  to 
national   industry,   except  under  a  particular   form,   and 


DOMINATION    BY    LABOUR  227 

under  that  form  only  renders  it  superfluous  by  placing  at 
our  disposal  the  result  of  the  very  labour  thus  superseded. 
If  men  lived  in  diving-bells  under  water,  and  had  to  pro- 
vide themselves  with  air  by  means  of  a  pump,  this  would 
be  a  great  source  of  employment.  To  throw  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  such  employment,  as  long  as  men  were  left  in 
this  condition,  would  be  to  inflict  upon  them  a  frightful 
injury.  But  if  the  labour  ceases  because  the  necessity  for 
its  exertion  no  longer  exists,  because  men  are  placed  in  a 
medium  where  air  is  introduced  into  their  lungs  without 
effort,  then  the  loss  of  that  labour  is  not  to  be  regretted, 
except  in  the  eyes  of  men  who  obstinately  persist  in  appre- 
ciating in  labour  nothing  but  labour  in  the  abstract. 

It  is  exactly  this  kind  of  labour  which  machinery,  com- 
mercial freedom,  progress  of  every  kind,  gradually  super- 
sedes; not  useful  labour,  but  labour  become  superfluous, 
without  object,  and  without  result.  On  the  contrary,  pro- 
tection sets  that  sort  of  useless  labour  to  work ;  it  places 
us  again  under  water,  to  bring  the  air-pump  into  play;  it 
forces  us  to  apply  for  gold  to  the  inaccessible  national 
mine,  rather  than  to  the  national  workshops.  All  the  effect 
is  expressed  by  the  words,  loss  of  forces. 

It  will  be  understood  that  I  am  speaking  here  of 
general  effects,  not  of  the  temporary  inconvenience  which 
is  always  caused  by  the  transition  from  a  bad  system  to 
a  good  one.  A  momentary  derangement  accompanies 
necessarily  all  progress.  This  may  be  a  reason  for  making 
the  transition  gently  and  gradually.  It  is  no  reason  for 
putting  a  stop  systematically  to  all  progress,  still  less  for 
misunderstanding  it. 

Industry  is  often  represented  as  a  struggle.  That  is 
not  a  true  representation  of  it,  or  only  true  when  we  confine 
ourselves  to  the  consideration  of  each  branch  of  industry  in 
its  effects  upon  a  similar  branch,  regarding  them  both 
apart  from  the  interests  of  the  rest  of  mankind.     But  there 


228  FALLACIES    OF    PROTECTION 

is  always  something  else  to  be  considered,  namely,  the 
effects  upon  consumption  and  upon  general  prosperity. 

It  is  an  error  to  apply  to  trade,  as  is  but  too  often  done, 
phrases  which  are  applicable  to  war. 

In  war  the  stronger  overcomes  the  weaker. 

In  industry  the  stronger  imparts  force  to  the  weaker. 
This  entirely  does  away  with  the  analogy. 

Let  the  English  be  as  powerful  and  skilful  as  they  are 
represented,  let  them  be  possessed  of  as  large  an  amount 
of  capital,  and  have  as  great  a  command  of  the  two  great 
agents  of  production,  iron  and  fuel,  as  they  are  supposed 
to  have ;  all  this  simply  means  cheapness.  And  who  gains 
by  the  cheapness  of  products?     The  man  who  buys  them. 

It  is  not  in  their  power  to  annihilate  any  part  whatever 
of  our  national  labour.  All  they  can  do  is  to  render  it 
superfluous  in  the  production  of  what  has  been  already 
acquired,  to  furnish  us  with  air  without  the  aid  of  the 
pump,  to  enlarge  in  this  way  our  disposable  forces,  and 
so  render  their  alleged  domination  by  so  much  the  more 
impossible  as  their  superiority  becomes  the  more  incon- 
testable. 

Thus,  by  a  rigorous  and  consoling  demonstration,  we 
arrive  at  this  conclusion,  that  labour  and  violence,  which 
are  so  opposite  in  their  nature,  are  not  less  so  in  their 
effects. 

All  we  are  called  upon  to  do  is  to  distinguish  between 
labour  annihilated  and  labour  economised. 

To  have  less  iron  because  we  work  less,  and  to  have 
less  iron  although  we  work  less,  are  things  not  only 
different,  but  opposed  to  each  other.  The  protectionists 
confound  them;  we  do  not.     That  is  all. 

We  may  be  very  certain  of  one  thing,  that  if  the 
English  employ  a  large  amount  of  activity,  labour,  capital, 
intelligence,  and  natural  forces,  it  is  not  done  for  show. 
It  is  done  in  order  to  procure  a  multitude  of  enjoyments  in 


DOMINATION   BY    LABOUR  229 

exchange  for  their  products.  They  most  certainly  expect 
to  receive  at  least  as  much  as  they  give.  What  they  pro- 
duce at  home  is  destined  to  pay  for  what  they  purchase 
abroad.  If  they  inundate  us  with  their  products,  it  is 
because  they  expect  to  be  inundated  with  ours  in  return. 
That  being  so,  the  best  means  of  having  much  for  our- 
selves is  to  be  free  to  choose  between  these  two  modes 
of  acquisition,  direct  production  and  indirect  production. 
British  Machiavelism  cannot  force  us  to  make  a  wrong 
choice. 

Let  us  give  up,  then,  the  puerility  of  applying  to  in- 
dustrial competition  phrases  applicable  to  war — a  false  way 
of  speaking  which  is  only  specious  when  applied  to  com- 
petition between  two  rival  trades.  The  moment  we  come 
to  take  into  ^recount  the  effect  produced  on  the  general 
prosperity,  the  analogy  disappears. 

In  a  battle  everyone  who  is  killed  diminishes  by  so 
much  the  strength  of  the  army.  In  industry,  a  workshop 
is  shut  up  only  when  what  it  produced  is  obtained  by 
the  public  from  another  source  and  in  greater  abundance. 
Picture  a  state  of  things  where  for  one  man  killed  on  the 
spot  two  should  rise  up  full  of  life  and  vigour.  Were  such 
a  state  of  things  possible,  war  would  no  longer  merit  its 
name. 

This,  however,  is  the  distinctive  character  of  what  is  so 
absurdly  called  industrial  war. 

Let  the  Belgians  and  the  English  lower  the  price  of 
their  iron  ever  so  much ;  let  them,  if  they  will,  send  it  to 
us  for  nothing;  this  might  extinguish  some  of  our  blast- 
furnaces ;  but  immediately,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence 
of  this  very  cheapness,  there  would  rise  up  a  thousand 
other  branches  of  industry  more  profitable  than  the  one 
which  had  been  superseded. 

We  arrive,  then,  at  the  conclusion  that  domination  by 
labour  is  impossible,  and  a  contradiction  in  terms,  seeing 


230  FALLACIES   OF   PROTECTION 

that  all  superiority  which  manifests  itself  among  a  people 
means  cheapness,  and  tends  only  to  impart  force  to  all 
other  nations.  Let  us  banish,  then,  from  political  economy 
all  terms  borrowed  from  the  military  vocabulary  :  to  fight 
with  equal  weapons,  to  conquer,  to  crush,  to  stifle,  to  be 
beaten,  invasion,  tribute,  etc.  What  do  such  phrases 
mean  ?  Squeeze  them,  and  you  obtain  nothing.  .  ,  . 
Yes,  you  do  obtain  something;  for  from  such  words  pro- 
ceed absurd  errors,  and  fatal  and  pestilent  prejudices. 
Such  phrases  tend  to  arrest  the  fusion  of  nations,  are 
inimical  to  their  peaceful,  universal,  and  indissoluble 
alliance,  and  retard  the  progress  of  the  human  race. 


THE  END 


Printed  by  Cassbll  &  Company,  Limited,  La  Belle  Sauvage,  London,  E.C. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


lS0ct'57LS 


"V  STACKS 


RFr'n  I  n 


SEP  16 


lasa 


OCT    7  1Q57 


Rig^e^^^^ 


REC'D  LD 


APR     8  1959 


J^l^  2    1958 


6May'58JH 


'^6iW,B0ii¥ 


''EC'D  LD 


SIP  la  1960 


^Pf?  ^3^953 


;^^C'."J  ^o 


26Sep'56'«li 


"tl*  12  I960 


JAN  2  2  2001 


LD  21A-50m-8/57 
(C8481slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


335052 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


f^... 


r-^  -r- 


